Document the criteria for DNS servers #1111
2
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/7_DNS_provider.md
vendored
@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ labels: 🌐 website issue, 🗄️ DNS
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
### Required features:
|
||||
Why not add Also, I think P2P DNS Support is a must:
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
Censorship may also be a concern, have you considered adding Censorship may also be a concern, have you considered adding `Net Neutral` to the list?
basically there are three conflicting meanins for the word "DNS with Tor" and we aren't aware of any resolvers that support I2P.
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?
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?
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.
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- DoH and DoT are supported natively by platforms like Firefox and Android (< 9) -->
|
||||
|
Todo: read privacy policies of "some" logging (#1097) Todo: read privacy policies of "some" logging (#1097)
Todo: small explanation or a link how to test it? Todo: small explanation or a link how to test it?
Todo: testing instruction in case the provider doesn't advertise this. Todo: testing instruction in case the provider doesn't advertise this.
@nitrohorse Could we actually boost DNSSEC into a required feature as everyone on #1097 appears to support it? @nitrohorse Could we actually boost DNSSEC into a required feature as everyone on #1097 appears to support it?
Yeah, I think so 👍🏼 Yeah, I think so 👍🏼
Could we make this also a checkbox? Could we make this also a checkbox?
Sure, done, I was thinking of making it obvious that all features are checked, but I guess this is nice for comparsion Sure, done, I was thinking of making it obvious that all features are checked, but I guess this is nice for comparsion
Do we mean “Android 9+?” Do we mean “Android 9+?”
I tried to say newer than 9, but I can change it to that too if you wish I tried to say newer than 9, but I can change it to that too if you wish
I guess consistency I guess consistency
Ah gotcha, okay, no worries; you can leave it 👌🏼 Ah gotcha, okay, no worries; you can leave it 👌🏼
Small suggestion: Small suggestion:
```markdown
[ ] supports QNAME minimization <!-- if you have access to the dig command, `dig +short txt qnamemintest.internet.nl` -->
```
Done Done
|
||||
<!-- DoH and DoT are supported natively by platforms like Firefox and Android 9+ -->
|
||||
|
Todo: read privacy policies of "some" logging (#1097) Todo: read privacy policies of "some" logging (#1097)
Todo: small explanation or a link how to test it? Todo: small explanation or a link how to test it?
Todo: testing instruction in case the provider doesn't advertise this. Todo: testing instruction in case the provider doesn't advertise this.
@nitrohorse Could we actually boost DNSSEC into a required feature as everyone on #1097 appears to support it? @nitrohorse Could we actually boost DNSSEC into a required feature as everyone on #1097 appears to support it?
Yeah, I think so 👍🏼 Yeah, I think so 👍🏼
Could we make this also a checkbox? Could we make this also a checkbox?
Sure, done, I was thinking of making it obvious that all features are checked, but I guess this is nice for comparsion Sure, done, I was thinking of making it obvious that all features are checked, but I guess this is nice for comparsion
Do we mean “Android 9+?” Do we mean “Android 9+?”
I tried to say newer than 9, but I can change it to that too if you wish I tried to say newer than 9, but I can change it to that too if you wish
I guess consistency I guess consistency
Ah gotcha, okay, no worries; you can leave it 👌🏼 Ah gotcha, okay, no worries; you can leave it 👌🏼
Small suggestion: Small suggestion:
```markdown
[ ] supports QNAME minimization <!-- if you have access to the dig command, `dig +short txt qnamemintest.internet.nl` -->
```
Done Done
|
||||
|
||||
* [ ] supports DoH or DoT <!-- We love DNSCrypt, but there is already https://github.com/DNSCrypt/dnscrypt-resolvers which is directly supported by dnscrypt-proxy, so we don't consider useful to list providers only supporting it. -->
|
||||
* [ ] supports DNSSEC <!-- https://dnssec.vs.uni-due.de/ can test your current DNS provider. -->
|
||||
|
||||
|
Todo: read privacy policies of "some" logging (#1097) Todo: read privacy policies of "some" logging (#1097)
Todo: read privacy policies of "some" logging (#1097) Todo: read privacy policies of "some" logging (#1097)
Todo: small explanation or a link how to test it? Todo: small explanation or a link how to test it?
Todo: small explanation or a link how to test it? Todo: small explanation or a link how to test it?
Todo: testing instruction in case the provider doesn't advertise this. Todo: testing instruction in case the provider doesn't advertise this.
Todo: testing instruction in case the provider doesn't advertise this. Todo: testing instruction in case the provider doesn't advertise this.
@nitrohorse Could we actually boost DNSSEC into a required feature as everyone on #1097 appears to support it? @nitrohorse Could we actually boost DNSSEC into a required feature as everyone on #1097 appears to support it?
@nitrohorse Could we actually boost DNSSEC into a required feature as everyone on #1097 appears to support it? @nitrohorse Could we actually boost DNSSEC into a required feature as everyone on #1097 appears to support it?
Yeah, I think so 👍🏼 Yeah, I think so 👍🏼
Yeah, I think so 👍🏼 Yeah, I think so 👍🏼
Could we make this also a checkbox? Could we make this also a checkbox?
Could we make this also a checkbox? Could we make this also a checkbox?
Sure, done, I was thinking of making it obvious that all features are checked, but I guess this is nice for comparsion Sure, done, I was thinking of making it obvious that all features are checked, but I guess this is nice for comparsion
Sure, done, I was thinking of making it obvious that all features are checked, but I guess this is nice for comparsion Sure, done, I was thinking of making it obvious that all features are checked, but I guess this is nice for comparsion
Do we mean “Android 9+?” Do we mean “Android 9+?”
Do we mean “Android 9+?” Do we mean “Android 9+?”
I tried to say newer than 9, but I can change it to that too if you wish I tried to say newer than 9, but I can change it to that too if you wish
I tried to say newer than 9, but I can change it to that too if you wish I tried to say newer than 9, but I can change it to that too if you wish
I guess consistency I guess consistency
I guess consistency I guess consistency
Ah gotcha, okay, no worries; you can leave it 👌🏼 Ah gotcha, okay, no worries; you can leave it 👌🏼
Ah gotcha, okay, no worries; you can leave it 👌🏼 Ah gotcha, okay, no worries; you can leave it 👌🏼
Small suggestion: Small suggestion:
```markdown
[ ] supports QNAME minimization <!-- if you have access to the dig command, `dig +short txt qnamemintest.internet.nl` -->
```
Small suggestion: Small suggestion:
```markdown
[ ] supports QNAME minimization <!-- if you have access to the dig command, `dig +short txt qnamemintest.internet.nl` -->
```
Done Done
Done Done
|
||||
Todo: read privacy policies of "some" logging (#1097)
Todo: read privacy policies of "some" logging (#1097)
Todo: small explanation or a link how to test it?
Todo: small explanation or a link how to test it?
Todo: testing instruction in case the provider doesn't advertise this.
Todo: testing instruction in case the provider doesn't advertise this.
@nitrohorse Could we actually boost DNSSEC into a required feature as everyone on #1097 appears to support it?
@nitrohorse Could we actually boost DNSSEC into a required feature as everyone on #1097 appears to support it?
Yeah, I think so 👍🏼
Yeah, I think so 👍🏼
Could we make this also a checkbox?
Could we make this also a checkbox?
Sure, done, I was thinking of making it obvious that all features are checked, but I guess this is nice for comparsion
Sure, done, I was thinking of making it obvious that all features are checked, but I guess this is nice for comparsion
Do we mean “Android 9+?”
Do we mean “Android 9+?”
I tried to say newer than 9, but I can change it to that too if you wish
I tried to say newer than 9, but I can change it to that too if you wish
I guess consistency
I guess consistency
Ah gotcha, okay, no worries; you can leave it 👌🏼
Ah gotcha, okay, no worries; you can leave it 👌🏼
Small suggestion:
Small suggestion:
Done
Done