From: Paul Wouters <[email protected]>
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026, Ben Schwartz wrote:
>
>> To be clear: the goals of this draft cannot be met using only a registry of
>> error codes. The goal is to allow a
>> resolver to inform the user about the particular legal action (e.g. a
>> particular lawsuit, warrant,
>> cease-and-desist letter, sanctions obligation, etc.) that caused the
>> resolver to refuse a particular query.
> It seemed to me the goal was for a resolver to use a browser vetted
> hardcoded list of blocking providers, who are not neccessarilly the
> DNS service providers?
I don't think so. Lumen (for example) is not a "blocking provider". It is a
database of legal actions ("complaints") reported by many participating
services, each of which would impact at most a subset of the participating
services.
> Where my point is that a QNAME is already a unique identifier to use
> with the browser's builtin trusted reporter sites.
The QNAME doesn't uniquely identify a blocking action. There could be many
legal actions around the world related to a single domain (e.g. proclamations
by different jurisdictions, or threatening letters sent to various resolver
operators), but likely only a subset of these were relevant to the resolver's
decision.
> So I am not sure why a draft is needed? One reason I heard in the past
was that the reporter sites (or Lumens at least?) does not support
querying by QNAME but only by some internal reference number.
Lumen does support such queries, but a single domain can pull up thousands of
complaints [1]. Which of them were deemed compelling by my resolver operator,
and which were ignored? Or was the decision made on some basis that has not
(yet?) been added to the database at all?
--Ben Schwartz
[1] https://lumendatabase.org/notices/search?term=tpb.proxyduck.com&sort_by=
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
