IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] What to do in this potential working group

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 21 August 2019 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 9B87512001E for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.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 puS1zV7mnLkG for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 54824120089 for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x7LLRKJH002173 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 16:27:21 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1566422842; bh=K4g+UTiea8P+h9HcFK2mDKkKoHW2W2A3iUyoGEd6rUg=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=KPxFXvVZbGN1Iffbwq5q3jOGRnZiJepFM/Qg85+zcble3e8ra5Omdq/VkyTvJMOXS qQwsO4vM7/x3aepDH25Nno/Nj6OdDt4x0JxGokfIZMA+LUNmtgkvd9yNXwyaCMNEzm zd2d6WMjoSyN1jI+NyMKsK5kRBuCdHZUVzEyYyjs=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: add@ietf.org
References: <A1128702-1E19-4657-9740-E84AE09992F2@piuha.net> <CABcZeBMfOTjq-8hDDoKMtJvfHUA5nC8o60zuk-2Xe-ZhfwriJQ@mail.gmail.com> <766112E1-F532-4C6B-8CA8-A096671E02EE@piuha.net> <CA+9kkMAfuOwJu8_qJTuhAY4mUwR+tVUxr+k3QFHBk3byV672Ow@mail.gmail.com> <E83D9594-E7CB-4DAC-8EDC-333E9B0964F1@piuha.net>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <279abf8c-198b-5da8-1cb9-4f86bf1f37c7@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 16:27:15 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E83D9594-E7CB-4DAC-8EDC-333E9B0964F1@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/l2aq0MolQJg8K4-KngoxP8qaqrg>
Subject: Re: [Add] What to do in this potential working group
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: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 21:27:26 -0000

On 8/21/19 4:10 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Now, imagine that the next version of the browser comes with by-default quad-n/doh setting, and now the browser will be contacting a different server...


I really wish people wouldn't persist in ignoring repeated explanations 
that Firefox (at least) will have actual user interaction at the time 
that DoH is made available in a user's region, with a one-click option 
to turn it off. Theoreticals that presume DoH will be activated silently 
imply a level of incompetence and/or malice on behalf of Mozilla's 
product managers that I don't believe is warranted.

If there's any progress to be made, it almost certainly requires us to 
limit the discussion to situations that may realistically arise rather 
than hypothesizing worst-case scenarios that won't.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email