Re: [Doh] [DNSOP] [Add] [dns-privacy] Do53 vs DoT vs DoH Page Load Performance Study at ANRW

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Mon, 22 July 2019 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Original-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68DAB1200B6; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:19:55 -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 nr3Nn1gc22uj; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (smtp.v6.rfc1035.com [IPv6:2001:4b10:100:7::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6CD91200A3; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-8a04.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-8a04.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.138.4]) (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 903C52421538; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:19:49 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <5018674.DSy9L6O0YW@linux-9daj>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 22:19:47 +0100
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>, "add@ietf.org" <add@ietf.org>, "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FDD73BA4-BA37-41C3-AE92-B32CC1C25DDA@rfc1035.com>
References: <402781F4-33D8-4FD4-8087-FDCEFFF2D549@iseclab.org> <5F9202DE-ED2F-4F2A-8463-12334E54BC46@cable.comcast.com> <LO2P265MB1327B72D0D6ABCBEEA84D349C2C40@LO2P265MB1327.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <5018674.DSy9L6O0YW@linux-9daj>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/1mkYIk9dy3H94mjcyFB5n7vr-OU>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [DNSOP] [Add] [dns-privacy] Do53 vs DoT vs DoH Page Load Performance Study at ANRW
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <doh.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/doh/>
List-Post: <mailto:doh@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:19:55 -0000


> On 22 Jul 2019, at 21:52, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>; wrote:
> 
> apparently ECS creates problems for privacy, but _how could we have suspected_?

IIRC the ECS privacy issues were recognised at the time. They lost out to the argument that CDNs were already doing (or about to do) ECS and it would be better (for some definition of better) if this was done in a way that had an RFC behind it.