"To that end, today we are releasing a list of DOH requirements, available on the Mozilla wiki, that we will use to vet potential resolvers for Firefox. The requirements focus on three areas: 1) limiting data collection and retention from the resolver, 2) ensuring transparency for any data retention that does occur, and 3) limiting any potential use of the resolver to block access or modify content."
I sometimes use a local resolver bound to localhost that blocks ads by pointing to a custom root.
If someone aiming to be on the TRR list sets up a remote resolver that blocks ads (or replaces them with blank images) perhaps using the same technique, it could allow Firefox users to get ad blocking by default, by using DOH.
I wonder if that would violate Mozilla's requirements?
Are ads considered "content"?
There is of course precedent for blocking undesirable content via DNS as a "service".
Third party DNS service, for example the famous one that starts with "O", has been used to block certain content, e,g, at schools.
This was offered as a fee-based service.
If I remember correctly they also offered "free" service which was subject to redirection of NXDOMAIN to paid placement "search" results/ads.
This is talking about requirements for resolvers that will be included by default:
We have implemented DNS over HTTPS [RFC8484] and would like to
deploy it by default for our users. We intend to select a set of
Trusted Recursive Resolvers (TRRs) that we will use for DoH
resolution.
> I wonder if that would violate Mozilla's requirements?
The real question is if you're allowed to use your own resolver that conforms to your requirements if they differ from Mozilla's, even if a bit buried from the default list,
I sometimes use a local resolver bound to localhost that blocks ads by pointing to a custom root.
If someone aiming to be on the TRR list sets up a remote resolver that blocks ads (or replaces them with blank images) perhaps using the same technique, it could allow Firefox users to get ad blocking by default, by using DOH.
I wonder if that would violate Mozilla's requirements?
Are ads considered "content"?
There is of course precedent for blocking undesirable content via DNS as a "service".
Third party DNS service, for example the famous one that starts with "O", has been used to block certain content, e,g, at schools.
This was offered as a fee-based service.
If I remember correctly they also offered "free" service which was subject to redirection of NXDOMAIN to paid placement "search" results/ads.