IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic-00.txt

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 20 March 2020 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 A573F3A149D for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 PvZLv8wwuKbC for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (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 CDCF43A1494 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id w1so4781653ljh.5 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hM0TsK54FtHqKtPh9+WoInB08w0UaAZw7XrgQ2vUNYE=; b=Y8mHgJctyovjqQ/+Mu44vQn1gOL0PFnZUhSz104/eg5zXx2KEN47TAlwah78N/O2tH 7xywZB4wgftrDJ0cUYmlQyJ99uJXojjlHHWP/flcDQf0+IkgSLlQdN2ifsdEKaQFc5OQ 9LgEqnntUt598a3d7CfxptEsIZnMnjHNjYyqfeSfR27zpRKfm36ao/0p7iNtUEnAwy67 Y2WC+W+Ivl9MNMKbKnEom4mSPBydF/a9+VETys7Aj7mqqeMkWnNLf/FzcTWNUKhqzI+a 5zJKSVHJQUS6pWXNOaf28gR4izSYEoy1Y0+Bc194lkenxltKLYyn9LssuGHRtRhbiGLi T2IQ==
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=hM0TsK54FtHqKtPh9+WoInB08w0UaAZw7XrgQ2vUNYE=; b=jexbUbfIySfBMErYNQrq6LRXO7JzU8qnNZL4qMVOGbThRm/UkoM7B8fXmLDbKOeNrt 5XlvbkZxQzilcpSaaFnkFV48TXlmXF8N0Z0wYlnSlX00PqTmOBs5WufXwMbbEkSag2SP rncLlpFH5CGSPXIwAgHkT6DE5y4ZDi7iNQKFWYHeb8+l87dHe673qZyx1GaBLpJtZR6m CcVfg2ijlf7SMl9zdj6kFMQ8yKzChLiQ+ukp/EfJQrXlU19w/m3FT2kRlC520i4Xh+tn y/mlhK7l84JVDutJIMAZlvSTFhBa1hKEksm6a7ql35vxjmb+ZqDKFM9gPO+ECcD2Njxy PCdA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3yKEdQlGp/aypFFiZwFQjOWq+xau8HcsbWgbIjerZhRkOB6fQR zzMUVAKkMjal8s0oSsStHMFY8H8BJoON0LzlEm2/M5/t+DY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtUmMtXa4MfQtU0SaeQDkVYynFzQcT0s8yESdNXqnJnkEIUT7Zn7+KkMm7UuYrYbaXEXqOYWeEv23WS1xMNzp0=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7a0c:: with SMTP id v12mr3797983ljc.274.1584669852506; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158346998979.14732.7173381060352492793@ietfa.amsl.com> <8d4e2a1a-358b-b816-f095-3b4dc52b915f@huitema.net> <8ED568C4-B94B-455B-BC07-591FFCB21229@icann.org> <2b33c380-0f7f-84b0-a980-e8a1d1e881e9@huitema.net> <CAChr6Sx7XSSh9CuH-QfXqyrRUNkChKeCwEYHT1HcVTCfjxcb3g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6Sx7XSSh9CuH-QfXqyrRUNkChKeCwEYHT1HcVTCfjxcb3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:03:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMh+ANL+e56U=ymYkm++7gy_9PYfx3p-QUf1JRiuaQMeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a52b1905a13fb33f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/mKU1VGrOm0Ke8v14N8pTxizehMk>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic-00.txt
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: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 02:04:30 -0000

As Rob says, the DoH versus DoT performance situation is complicated, and I
don't think that this text is a great summary of the situation. There are a
lot of factors to consider here (connection setup time, retransmission
algorithms, etc.) but I would not expect DoQ to have performance
characteristics much like Do53 at all.
-Ekr








On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:15 PM Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:53 PM Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/6/2020 7:30 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>
>> > Thank you for continuing this interesting work. However, a reader might
>> not realize that many other folks would prefer DNS/HTTPS/QUIC until the get
>> all the way to Section 3.4. Also, the title of that section seems a bit
>> unbalanced, given that the text says that people might prefer
>> DNS/HTTPS/QUIC for reasons other than hiding from firewalls.
>> >
>> > For a future version of this draft, please consider moving the
>> comparison to DNS/HTTPS/QUIC, and the discussion of not knowing which one
>> folks will prefer, up to the Introduction. That would leave Section 3.4
>> just about the stated design goal.
>>
>> Yes. I would like to end up with just a spec, and leave the discussion
>> about DoT vs DoQ vs DoH vs DoH3 to some other document...
>>
>
>  The introduction says:
>
>  "DNS over QUIC (DoQ) has privacy
>   properties similar to DNS over TLS (DoT) specified in RFC7858, and
>   performance characteristics similar to classic DNS over UDP."
>
> I think you might want to drop this text on performance characteristics,
> since it seems to imply DNS over UDP has better performance characteristics.
>
> At least for DoH, some data seems to show that it vastly outperforms DNS
> over UDP after the 80th percentile of latency, while being just slightly
> slower below the 80th percentile.
>
> Source: https://youtu.be/_ZoyxE0bLp8?t=4839 (Ekr talk at DNS-OARC).
>
> thanks,
> Rob
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dns-privacy mailing list
> dns-privacy@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email