Re: [Add] Thoughts on a DoH (and DoT) BCP?

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andy,

On 7/10/19 7:50 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> Thanks Barry / Brian for highlighting the dprive-bcp-draft, I agree we should not have two BCPs from different WGs conflicting with one another. Let us discuss this in the 15min BoF slot we have allocated for overlap with existing chartered work in DPRIVE, DOH and DNSOP.
> 
> On the potential topics list for a DoH BCP which areas do you believe are already covered in the DPRIVE draft and/or ongoing DPRIVE work?  Which areas do you believe are not covered and should be considered by the ADD BoF?
> 

From a DoT perspective, I think ADD could focus on:


- split DNS
- TLS session management
- TLS overhead minimization

Some of the last two are covered in the DoT spec
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7858#section-5)

Regards,
Brian


> Thanks,
> 
> Andy
> 
> [e-mail]
> 
> This email contains information from BT that might be privileged or confidential. And it's only meant for the person above. If that's not you, we're sorry - we must have sent it to you by mistake. Please email us to let us know, and don't copy or forward it to anyone else. Thanks.
> We monitor our email systems and may record all our emails.
> British Telecommunications plc
> R/O : 81 Newgate Street, London EC1A 7AJ
> Registered in England: No 1800000
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Add [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman
> Sent: 08 July 2019 14:22
> To: Barry Greene <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Add] Thoughts on a DoH (and DoT) BCP?
> 
> Hi Barry,
> 
> On 7/5/19 6:07 AM, Barry Greene wrote:
>>
>> The issues that Andrew is bring up would take that dprive-bcp draft in a totally different direction. Is this want you want? Would the authors be open to the change?
>>
> 
> My reason for pointing out the dprive BCP is to make sure everyone is aware of that document.
> 
> As for the content... It is a dprive WG document, so it is subject to consensus-based changes. Neither I, as dprive co-chair, nor the draft authors have any more influence over the content than any other IETF participant.
> 
> What I don't want is for 2 BCPs from different WGs to conflict with one another, hence the pointer.
> 
> Regards,
> Brian
> 
>>> On Jul 4, 2019, at 9:29 AM, Brian Haberman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Signed PGP part
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/3/19 3:41 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> There are many challenges facing enterprise and internet service provider / operator networks that intend to deploy and operate DoH (and DoT) resolver services. The IETF should consider developing a BCP which documents these concerns and provide appropriate guidance. Some of these issues include:
>>>
>>> Please remember that there is already an operationally-focused BCP 
>>> draft for DoT.
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op/
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>