IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] Proposed charter and BoF request for IETF 106

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 09 October 2019 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 CE30A12093C for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 10:15:26 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 NUGz0ZtK3fdx for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 10:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A9491208D6 for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 10:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46pLSq0d4qzFb4 for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 19:15:23 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1570641323; bh=SJvnZ55rTbu4c34WINKM4xSb7KR/O0UPqd2rHkMxPeM=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=omdBft4UCsVfByCsxJX0cFnpP8lWisp3D9hqM3invf/FIlQV7pNf2+SBsWsuxDOm6 q/ODZr+lvzalEi+xJ78DSUmwAropQ7mEin9m+aUf+qNODcx/nIa2FdhdxkVCwnWroA cohVcM6g5emYzrz++Q0+qdIV4dyp0V62FB+5TEnI=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qNtjRPmVN5JH for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 19:15:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 19:15:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 12089607F1DF; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:15:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10A1465E60 for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:15:21 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 13:15:21 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: add@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNyRDqnVL68aXny=Ht69NjahmS4zRsnYizO53M--rhM5g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1910091313590.2297@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CALaySJLxXVuHQNfTnaeKZ_R9xtBYWfbta+A1bWcE-ZQZwd3VZg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMkAFZW9mWjw92v+OR0Fa8ed+P80yc78eY07hCpsCNY6Q@mail.gmail.com> <1556423899.28427.1570640191209@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <CABcZeBNyRDqnVL68aXny=Ht69NjahmS4zRsnYizO53M--rhM5g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/rAZQsRe1hKhRXsK1BFY0sltAlDU>
Subject: Re: [Add] Proposed charter and BoF request for IETF 106
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, 09 Oct 2019 17:15:27 -0000

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019, Eric Rescorla wrote:

> You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that we should not enable network operators to shift to encrypted transport.
> As I said in the section of my message that you cut, I'm more than happy to have the IETF standardize a mechanism for
> the network to tell endpoints that it supports encrypted transport. I'm merely observing that this does not address the
> issue that Mozilla is trying to address with our DoH/TRR deployment.

And it seems doing this at the DHCP / Captive Portal level is enough. I
don't see the need for a WG to be spun up for this.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email