IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] Mozilla's DoH resolver policy

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 12 April 2019 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFC412067F for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A_2Z8DZUTqsi for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-x12b.google.com (mail-it1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55B9712067B for <add@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id w15so17948150itc.0 for <add@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wIo5JTwaOa0q0rKG7w+7/X4f67/YK8Cssq4/dhTEOS8=; b=T7OM7ugrMQnq8s5Z2CTEd6EpeYfz8wQlNxxJjuNG2vAuBwd3GtyXs8v3Cvy0HFVBGI hp5Hr4bSsRFHAQyLDCyld81YLjjOi9Op+DQ3EFWSHO5MG3/G9KzdGHVBoP2w2bEl3Nqc cO5OjrO2Sb4ZZ+Xu9tgIqmVm6j2bDP+E2blWlvaXPjKQC/QCPGntLScDqDCj3NwRGP+D jtNdWfZlBkNRXKlhazDKJ3QzIE6P7HfcRqR98IjOh1uzjk6365eg2uSgcg28iOsqmTYl M8vWS6NQViIUTRjrMAN8GoB7r9Kl6PgS3vm9zQ1lp/VMhy+8JCer/hZeCt1Y1QPtcps/ XPNw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wIo5JTwaOa0q0rKG7w+7/X4f67/YK8Cssq4/dhTEOS8=; b=kzl0jwQHXIVdglCtZZdoB7VSpiyAG0llIqco7USDCWvLe+ffxbhS7ON2OnOWAlDIFO jQ0elPXDQUCWzy3xmpZRc1uHL6baTz794ddijStMJed62y56IoHsoeXKpWJ2vjYYYlo5 u95ASF53otybiswipG98OYAH5qzMcddu393dtVLqOta0SiMl6AcIcz19mkaDDc2rUqQA sTDIVlBZbCNcQ2Hw8VEu08ZlHGINGUFUeReERFBDoZDIOm5HDfZYow0JD7TbKJ4oEg5n piwjUWQhCLBHoZQIXvvBYjAMp4o/tU1hhG4KVts9AHes5RemDttRFpEhXgNy9VkPVQlO pmmw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUiCleBR8LhYW/O2263+5DqcP/QdgbpqcxHh/1Z7fDXYsFDDYzC kpZxtqze+YEl3NESw4wUzftC+6+5BsizzaDpRSs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwTgQUDlhzrOpBcDm3T3d/OEpdkzBKhjbz3dw/i9FEYOi53MfmZiChm9GdnAThn/GUUGPr+OWrsfXJkFXPnB3U=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:942c:: with SMTP id a41mr41784851jai.61.1555102303524; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <297C80CE-F017-4F4A-80E2-79941E8B9E02@icann.org> <b64761dc-dfab-e4e1-4bfb-82d607efa590@riseup.net> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1904101324530.9940@bofh.nohats.ca> <64aeff58-6d68-4c4f-b991-2b2f62d193a0@www.fastmail.com> <90A5C5C4-373C-4B39-80C2-C115CD23CB4D@fl1ger.de> <994839978.18707.1554973716877@appsuite.open-xchange.com> <af5f5c76-0095-65a0-39d1-d29d4bb0e906@mozilla.com> <ybl36mn8b54.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <f9d0cd98-db0c-7f42-d351-d9a5002c4765@mozilla.com> <CA+9kkMAobw2giYO=8pbLVi4ms0Ru+nYwhV5DGxLCwaUdX6EQyQ@mail.gmail.com> <yblv9zj5591.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
In-Reply-To: <yblv9zj5591.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:51:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMBMehkz3NbytL+vfDh+SwhW9At_q7oBL8a7XSEiSSrNwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
Cc: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>, add@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000641c4105865b78e0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/gkqphNK7OE7tgnwAM87jEPL3BOM>
Subject: Re: [Add] Mozilla's DoH resolver policy
X-BeenThere: add@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <add.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/>
List-Post: <mailto:add@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 20:51:47 -0000

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 1:38 PM Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> wrote:

>
> > What this should do is associate the clients with the lowest latency
> > resolver.
>
> I wish we (collectively) could get over the notion that latency was the
> only, or the most important metric out there at all times.
> Happy-eyeballs approaches to problems can go too far.
>

The world of browsers cares a lot about latency, since it effects page load
time and thus revenue.  I don't think it is going away as *a* metric, in
other words.  Systems like this also distribute load even among
uncoordinated servers, which is a useful characteristic for both networks
and server operators.

What else do you want to see optimized here?

Ted

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email