Gentlemen, This conversation has gone to the zoo. What is or is not political doesn’t matter at this stage in the game, and neither is arguing over rights over bits. If people want to do that I suggest doing so in the HRPC WG and with a draft in hand. Flaming back and forth without an objective of actually modifying text or developing a work proposal is quite pointless.
What is important is to document the technical ramifications of the changes brought about by DoH. To move things forward, can we simply go through the drafts in the side meeting, and indicate what administrators might do about any perceived negative effects? Whether those effects seem negative to you only matters if there is a proposal for the IETF to take on new work to “correct” them. Eliot > On 13 Mar 2019, at 03:59, Christian Huitema <huit...@huitema.net> wrote: > > > > On 3/12/2019 2:11 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: >>> I don't see why, based on your argument, your concerns >>> trump his. >>> >>> Can you explain? >> he's trying to achieve a political aim using technology. that is not the >> purpose for which the internet engineering task force, or the internet >> itself, >> was convened. it is not why our employers pay our travel costs. and it is not >> why the rest of the world trusts our outputs. > > Sorry, but no. I am vying for network transparency, and I believe that if > filtering is to be enforced, it should be controlled by the user. You are > claiming that safety mandates giving the network operator full control over > name resolution. Both of these positions come from specific visions about how > the network should work. Neither is more a political goal than the other. > > -- Christian Huitema > > _______________________________________________ > Doh mailing list > d...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
