IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WG Call for Adoption: draft-pauly-dprive-oblivious-doh

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Thu, 18 March 2021 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
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 9C5D03A0F0A; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 08:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 GUyIkfqyXyhb; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 08:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa3.lax.icann.org (ppa3.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.78]) (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 CA9ED3A2E11; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 08:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-E2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.7]) by ppa3.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 12IFfTYT025424 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:41:30 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.721.2; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 08:41:28 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.0721.013; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 08:41:28 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [dns-privacy] WG Call for Adoption: draft-pauly-dprive-oblivious-doh
Thread-Index: AQHXHA0puZTk/mKnZ0yv3gSwiJddHg==
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:41:28 +0000
Message-ID: <27817649-FD99-49E6-8D5B-6B3CC6E16BE6@icann.org>
References: <1a1ef163-bef8-0726-8e51-e444e8fe6091@innovationslab.net> <CABcZeBP0WW_zVNAPjDJWr8zWzj-jStObHhBpJEjwsdCtkEtY_w@mail.gmail.com> <A22D0935-ABB2-447A-BEED-B10C1EAEFB88@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <A22D0935-ABB2-447A-BEED-B10C1EAEFB88@apple.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9B8D79E5-2D1D-44B9-8F74-10862CB94460"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.369, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-03-18_09:2021-03-17, 2021-03-18 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/yVgFvSExw_olsfF5mNz5PKJJlaE>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WG Call for Adoption: draft-pauly-dprive-oblivious-doh
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: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:41:47 -0000

On Mar 17, 2021, at 7:37 PM, Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> As an author, I support adoption as experimental. To Paul’s email, I also am quite happy to have change control governed by the WG.

Great, but:

> To the OHTTP discussion, I’m fine with having the direction be to use OHTTP for ODoH, but I personally believe that even in the best case, the timelines and deployment considerations make it more practical to have an experimental ODoH ship prior to a version that uses OHTTP.

This makes no sense. If you have a non-standard experimental spec that you are already implementing, but a forthcoming different spec whose base is being developed in another WG, you asking people to work on the will-be-obsoleted protocol wastes many people's time. 

If you want to just document what you are doing now, take your draft to the Independent Submission Editor as informational. The ISE will ask if you got external reviews, and it is quite reasonable for you to ask for those reviews.

Now that I understand the authors' intentions better, I withdraw my support for adoption.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email