Document the criteria for DNS servers #1111

2019-08-07T07:54:28Z

Mikaela commented

2019-08-07 07:54:28 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Description

Resolves: #1109

Preview

https://github.com/Mikaela/privacytools.io/issues/new/choose

## Description Resolves: #1109 ## Preview https://github.com/Mikaela/privacytools.io/issues/new/choose

jonah reviewed 2019-08-07 07:54:28 +00:00

netlify[bot] commented

2019-08-07 07:55:11 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Deploy preview for privacytools-io ready!

Built with commit 9e007f11be

https://deploy-preview-1111--privacytools-io.netlify.com

Deploy preview for *privacytools-io* ready! Built with commit 9e007f11be0cedb5bfdd20f088b74be7d069dc76 https://deploy-preview-1111--privacytools-io.netlify.com

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-07 07:59:36 +00:00

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

Ok, I was missing a lot when getting distracted

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/7_DNS_provider.md

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-08-07 07:55:53 +00:00

Todo: read privacy policies of "some" logging (#1097)

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-08-07 07:56:10 +00:00

Todo: small explanation or a link how to test it?

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-08-07 07:56:30 +00:00

Todo: testing instruction in case the provider doesn't advertise this.

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/7_DNS_provider.md

						
				@@ -0,0 +17,4 @@

				**Source:** <!-- link to the source code, preferred, but optional -->

				**Type:** <!-- Non-profit, commercial, hobby project? -->

				**Website:**

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-08-07 07:58:59 +00:00

Todo: Server location? Privacy policy? Type? Protocols? Filtering?

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-07 08:23:03 +00:00

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

Does this look OK, or am I putting too many details, or too little details? Is it cluttered, am I saying too much by telling the issue reporter to feel free to overwrite comments?

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-07 08:29:00 +00:00

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/7_DNS_provider.md

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-08-07 08:29:00 +00:00

@nitrohorse Could we actually boost DNSSEC into a required feature as everyone on #1097 appears to support it?

nitrohorse (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-07 13:47:11 +00:00

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/7_DNS_provider.md

nitrohorse (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-08-07 13:47:11 +00:00

Yeah, I think so 👍🏼

Mikaela commented

2019-08-07 16:04:10 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I guess this is ready for review

nitrohorse (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-07 16:19:31 +00:00

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/7_DNS_provider.md

nitrohorse (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-08-07 16:19:31 +00:00

Could we make this also a checkbox?

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-07 16:20:45 +00:00

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/7_DNS_provider.md

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-08-07 16:20:45 +00:00

Sure, done, I was thinking of making it obvious that all features are checked, but I guess this is nice for comparsion

nitrohorse (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-07 16:21:06 +00:00

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/7_DNS_provider.md

nitrohorse (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-08-07 16:21:06 +00:00

Do we mean “Android 9+?”

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-07 16:21:30 +00:00

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/7_DNS_provider.md

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-08-07 16:21:30 +00:00

I tried to say newer than 9, but I can change it to that too if you wish

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-07 16:21:39 +00:00

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/7_DNS_provider.md

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-08-07 16:21:39 +00:00

I guess consistency

nitrohorse (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-07 16:23:02 +00:00

nitrohorse (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

This LGTM 👍🏼

nitrohorse (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-07 16:23:48 +00:00

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/7_DNS_provider.md

nitrohorse (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-08-07 16:23:48 +00:00

Ah gotcha, okay, no worries; you can leave it 👌🏼

ghbjklhv1 (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-08 22:08:29 +00:00

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/7_DNS_provider.md

						
				@@ -0,0 +23,4 @@

				<!-- Why should we list your suggestion? Anything else, that you wish us to know? -->

				### Required features:

ghbjklhv1 (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-08-08 22:07:56 +00:00

Why not add Prioritize DNS with TOR/I2P When Available?

Also, I think P2P DNS Support is a must:
Consider adding Must Support P2P DNS (i.e NameCoin)

Just wanted to throw it out there

Why not add `Prioritize DNS with TOR/I2P When Available`? Also, I think P2P DNS Support is a must: Consider adding `Must Support P2P DNS (i.e NameCoin)` - Just wanted to throw it out there

ghbjklhv1 (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-08 22:09:51 +00:00

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/7_DNS_provider.md

						
				@@ -0,0 +23,4 @@

				<!-- Why should we list your suggestion? Anything else, that you wish us to know? -->

				### Required features:

ghbjklhv1 (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-08-08 22:09:51 +00:00

Censorship may also be a concern, have you considered adding Net Neutral to the list?

Censorship may also be a concern, have you considered adding `Net Neutral` to the list?

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-08 22:16:53 +00:00

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/7_DNS_provider.md

						
				@@ -0,0 +23,4 @@

				<!-- Why should we list your suggestion? Anything else, that you wish us to know? -->

				### Required features:

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-08-08 22:16:52 +00:00

Why not add Prioritize DNS with TOR/I2P When Available?

basically there are three conflicting meanins for the word "DNS with Tor" and we aren't aware of any resolvers that support I2P.

Also, I think P2P DNS Support is a must:
Consider adding Must Support P2P DNS (i.e NameCoin)

How widely used are they, how is the encryption and how is it P2P if everyone is just using a DNS server that happens to resolve it?

Censorship may also be a concern, have you considered adding Net Neutral to the list?

How do you define censorship or Net Neutral as opposed to filtering which is already on the list?

> Why not add Prioritize DNS with TOR/I2P When Available? * https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/pull/1097/#discussion_r311923362 * https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/pull/1097/#issuecomment-519705827 basically there are three conflicting meanins for the word "DNS with Tor" and we aren't aware of any resolvers that support I2P. > Also, I think P2P DNS Support is a must: > Consider adding Must Support P2P DNS (i.e NameCoin) How widely used are they, how is the encryption and how is it P2P if everyone is just using a DNS server that happens to resolve it? > Censorship may also be a concern, have you considered adding Net Neutral to the list? How do you define censorship or Net Neutral *as opposed to* filtering which is already on the list?

nitrohorse (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-09 03:53:28 +00:00

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/7_DNS_provider.md

nitrohorse (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-08-09 03:53:28 +00:00

Small suggestion:

[ ] supports QNAME minimization <!-- if you have access to the dig command, `dig +short txt qnamemintest.internet.nl` -->

Small suggestion: ```markdown [ ] supports QNAME minimization  ```

nitrohorse (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-08-09 04:27:02 +00:00

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/7_DNS_provider.md

						
				@@ -0,0 +23,4 @@

				<!-- Why should we list your suggestion? Anything else, that you wish us to know? -->

				### Required features:

nitrohorse (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-08-09 04:27:02 +00:00

Censorship may also be a concern, have you considered adding Net Neutral to the list?

Hmm how would AdGuard and Quad9 for instance be classified then as under this criteria since they filter ads/trackers/malware? I think filtering (when expected) is useful for a subset of PTIO's users' threat models.

> Censorship may also be a concern, have you considered adding Net Neutral to the list? Hmm how would AdGuard and Quad9 for instance be classified then as under this criteria since they filter ads/trackers/malware? I think filtering (when expected) is useful for a subset of PTIO's users' threat models.