D'oH III: In 3-D! Plot Twist from Google/Chrome, Vixie approves?

[toddunder at gmail.com (Todd Underwood)]

the relevant sentiment is:  thanks for whitelisting a fixed number of them
so i can block them.

t

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:42 AM Royce Williams <royce at techsolvency.com>
wrote:

> 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 <jra at 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
>> jra at 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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20191030/5aa6caf2/attachment.html>