IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] next steps for draft-opportunistic-adotq

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Wed, 24 March 2021 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F09543A2CD3 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 06:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 qQRhQmMI4_Ja for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 06:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (shaun.rfc1035.com [93.186.33.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 919833A2CD2 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 06:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gromit.rfc1035.com (gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A95A42421544; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:54:17 +0000 (UTC)
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
Message-Id: <DB196A4D-2720-4C9E-8A66-C314AB16BA0E@rfc1035.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5C28E25C-21D7-4160-933C-080402505744"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:54:16 +0000
In-Reply-To: <2E5B5290-CBBE-4F20-AD89-0BDCE3B2AA7F@pch.net>
Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
References: <A68841F4-B7CC-4AAC-BC9F-0961ADF2C8FA@rfc1035.com> <DF40D081-1EA8-4E92-BB67-2966E32688DE@nohats.ca> <2E5B5290-CBBE-4F20-AD89-0BDCE3B2AA7F@pch.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/AaRmrdAZTdi6MrYn33fMCq-zk5I>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] next steps for draft-opportunistic-adotq
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dns-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dns-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:dns-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:54:25 -0000


> On 24 Mar 2021, at 13:34, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
> 
> I’m still looking for those reasons.  Could you enumerate them again?

No. You can re-read my earlier mail which enumerated those reasons. If you want to discuss specifics, I’m happy to do so. Though the issue of SVCB records in TLDs is somewhat orthogonal to draft-opportunistic-adotq - as Paul Wouters pointed out. Perhaps that should be discussed off-list.

>> I very much doubt any busy TLD will ever turn on DoT or DoH on their authoritative name servers.
> 
> I’ve got a few hundred that say otherwise.

That’s fine Bill. However I think we’re using different definitions of busy.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email