Re: [Doh] operational considerations

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Fri, 17 November 2017 07:20 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 BAED8128D0F for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:20:20 -0800 (PST)
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, 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 uTBQz0auVpTz for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:20:19 -0800 (PST)
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 2BC18127B73 for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:20:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-91b2.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-91b2.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.145.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA4502420D43; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 07:20:16 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <22166e53-71e4-8787-08f4-7528559076d2@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 07:20:14 +0000
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, DOH Working Group <doh@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4F02C6A1-6D83-4EDB-B67B-BEC27A11BAD4@rfc1035.com>
References: <60b879b8-d107-ec79-b2f1-357e354702e4@cisco.com> <22166e53-71e4-8787-08f4-7528559076d2@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: =?utf-8?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=C3=BCrst=22?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/2wmTOlcB4tBwKVC-i54otMSETSg>
Subject: Re: [Doh] operational considerations
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 07:20:20 -0000

> On 17 Nov 2017, at 07:15, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
>>                            If a DOH server residing on the Internet may,
>>     therefore, provide an inconsistent answer than an internal resolver
>>     would.
> 
> This sentence doesn't make sense for me. I suggest a rewrite.

So rewrite it!