The difference is that Chrome won't use resolvers other than the ones you've configured yourself, and will simply opportunistically upgrade to DoH if they detect that those resolvers support it.
In other words, there is no usurpation of administrative intent. Royce On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 7:30 AM Jay R. Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote: > It's not clear to me whether Paul is expressing approval of the whole > shebang > at this point, or just the one change they've made, but, just on first > look, > I don't think that change addresses *my* distaste for DoH, as discussed in > last month's 100-poster. :-) > > > https://www.zdnet.com/article/dns-over-https-google-hits-back-at-misinformation-and-confusion-over-its-plans/ > > TL;DR: they (Chrome) won't enable DoH unless it's being run from an > internet > which they know supports it; there are apparently a list of 8-12 ISPs/etc > which are announcing such support. > > Cheers, > -- jra > > -- > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > j...@baylink.com > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land > Rover DII > St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 > 1274 >
