Re: [Doh] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-doh-resolver-associated-doh-03.txt

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Mon, 25 March 2019 11:32 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
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 52FD61203B9 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 04:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 0jXRFcrBYQjp for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 04:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C2CC120390 for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 04:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 04:32:30 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 04:32:29 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
CC: "doh@ietf.org" <doh@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [Doh] I-D Action: draft-ietf-doh-resolver-associated-doh-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHU4v5t1x5UeG9r80SO/OtTdhqgQA==
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 11:32:29 +0000
Message-ID: <F4EB8C31-57EB-4A4A-8A51-959D3EAE6CB0@icann.org>
References: <155341529409.18062.10657099011172813446@ietfa.amsl.com> <20190325110136.GA23793@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190325110136.GA23793@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <DB507450CA99454CB214DC017A31F82D@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/47bdwJJZU_Q5jQtbHHzv0BnOJpU>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-doh-resolver-associated-doh-03.txt
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, 25 Mar 2019 11:32:33 -0000

On Mar 25, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 01:14:54AM -0700,
> internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote 
> a message of 43 lines which said:
> 
>>        Title           : Associating a DoH Server with a Resolver
>>        Author          : Paul Hoffman
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-doh-resolver-associated-doh-03.txt
> 
> My biggest issue is that the rationale in section 1 has many weak points:
> 
> * "There is a use case for browsers and web applications". Why not for
> local limited resolvers like stubby or systemd-resolve? We assume they
> will always prefer DoT?

Yes.

> 
> * "much less often, they use manual configuration" Less often but more
> and more, to workaround failures and/or censorships. On a gamer forum,
> these days, any report of an issue, whatever the issue is, elicit a
> suggestion "switch to [some public DNS resolver]"

I'll remove the "much".

> * "In a common scenario" "Common" is way too vague for something which
> exists in *some* corporate networks but never (I hope so!) in public
> ISPs.

Good catch; fixed.

> Editorial:
> 
> * in section 5, server is written serer.
> 
> * in section 1, "Users typically configure their DNS recursive
> resolvers with through automatic configuration" With through?

Both fixed.

--Paul Hoffman