Re: [Doh] Dedicated DoH port

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Fri, 12 April 2019 15:00 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 0C6731208B3 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:00:23 -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, 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 p7BDnSxDAcar for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (shaun.rfc1035.com [93.186.33.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52864120894 for <doh@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.249.138] (unknown [195.15.22.68]) (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 088F8242109D; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:00:12 +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: <877ebz8kwz.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 16:00:11 +0100
Cc: =?utf-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>, doh@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CE253881-1DF9-4F2B-AE28-CA8926325572@rfc1035.com>
References: <d74add8f-8964-1c0f-cd2e-f10867390883@nic.cz> <87tvf48hyd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <af89fa30-b9a3-f471-50fc-bab48fb9cc32@nic.cz> <877ebz8kwz.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/4Q9QbB3dyvMAoHWlLYZ2Irr6yLQ>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Dedicated DoH port
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: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:00:28 -0000


> On 12 Apr 2019, at 13:31, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>; wrote:
> 
> The only "harder" part you're objecting to afaict is a single
> administrative command, executed during configuration of the DNS
> resolver daemon.  The tradeoff is a significant amount of complexity for
> the rest of the ecosystem, and potential worse interaction with the
> users.
> 
> I don't think that's a good tradeoff.

+1000