Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: New draft for consideration:

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:46 AM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
wrote:

> On Mar 24, 2019, at 11:18 AM, bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>
> wrote:
> > It may be good to add a note that "DoH is the protocol as defined in
> > [RFC8484]. The operation of this protocol by browser vendors and cloud
> > providers is frequently also called 'DoH'. DoH-the-protocol is
> > therefore frequently conflated with DoH being used to perform
> > DNS lookups in a different fashion than configured by the network
> settings
> > (see DaT and DaO)."
>
> A much better outcome would be that people who are saying DoH when they
> mean DaT or DaO would use the new terms. That is, this is a forward-looking
> document because we're making up new terms.
>

<no hats>
This is likely to be an annoying comment, but I don't really like the DaO
"acronym", simply because I'm not sure how people will pronounce it -- I
could see people mishearing "DaO" as "DoH", or the other way round --
unfortunately I don't have a better suggestion. Is it just me who has this
issue?

</no hats>
W

>
> > Secondly, I understand the technical need for the wording of the
> definition
> > of DaO.  But I had to read this all a few times before I understood that
> > 'DaO' includes what I've referred to as DoC (DNS over Cloud). I think
> > definitions should be easy to understand because otherwise they don't
> > function.
>
> I fully agree; proposed changes to this wording are quite welcome. It's a
> new term, after all.
>
> > I'm also not too hot for conflating "user consciously changes
> > /etc/resolv.conf or equivalent" with "application makes the choice for
> the
> > user".
>
> The split here is more "someone changes from traditional without the user
> knowing, when the user cares". If you have a better way to express that,
> that would be great.
>
> > Perhaps we should talk about 'Per-application stubs'? Because this is the
> > nub.
>
> Maybe, but I'm hesitant to make the break that way because some
> applications' stubs use the traditional resolver, others don't. I would be
> hesitant to conflate those two.
>
> > I'm willing to write text once we have discussed this a bit.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf