IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] panel discussion on DoH/DoC

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 11 February 2019 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 3CAFA1310FD for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 09:36:28 -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, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 jXIIhw8fdr10 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 09:36:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FB151310D7 for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 09:36:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id n23so8427967lfl.4 for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 09:36:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0XPw7FYUxdxaUBHReMe/7r/iTkUf68xK8tQ+owOlPKc=; b=JPbJ87Vqah7+VlA3aDE6i1VLstSczFDcqOnf5fxMSUkspqT9Tfq3COnTxzz7Mep7hU n8VmFw8mzhmOoci13r21iWEZkwXk2tvzwiRh+o6Ad/febCG4xZr6YaH/W8d60wAkOuVC eGyR3a8AxvmLT46AZIceQVeGzS3yRbJLdrQ+aq3X1cuMhacZtGmtzey2Nno6mYanTxnQ JnnxPU0TQ034XENtJWEvHvO9m8thzbW1kaHxCsLbYMxLdTg0HgNhXU4/JwW6ZhaNyAOT ERdmBQxaUrr2Wj4zHKeHHfbaCv8TYzuSy2+/f/FqWvq+WcMN0M8vF4p67Mex36XM/KU4 X4JQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0XPw7FYUxdxaUBHReMe/7r/iTkUf68xK8tQ+owOlPKc=; b=G5VDkhqbz2nxo54xusIGaU0jKxLYU/+wN3ZcK8bD1zVO4hX00HSGn6htw1yPDleUOs 4c31oz5kpT1rzXOf05uuyK06np9tupq/xL6/drg8GVhyxelWyry4495iUsSQRQGDdGwW hwLy5QSCcSZ115qlxk7VpgIMJ1mRKrtGN47b0V5cj1X3Hb1VUEqeWcZEvKm08xWyo8Zs MOFYythjUS4MK2i/kc9ai4l3GYyNQe/oZLHBXGVobwHZzImPlmgRHx7M8aYkGgCG9w/s tl6mKBUEqnrEL/8cZ0hakV6GxfvlmXCMUWv8iRlRkoO+RwuYaviKp8gmlGrluXJvZlBX mOXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubEyoITTDaX4q8dcs/AymMXN9cer5DeVdOTA2tmTYyrWL5m2rRM 4amkNZ+mh/QgOsODVbFKbNZ3q41klgw4zUH0KbdTiseO
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Ia+dYYs5/Rd9Dj40198CI54TR2bj/GumNc4ObvzGRnVqKsdSN0pRMG9oPoVIobk5qmLWnMebxHfW6y4WWSBkzE=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:51bc:: with SMTP id f28mr2778864lfk.123.1549906583233; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 09:36:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190207105106.GB1772@server.ds9a.nl> <C7C3BAF7-4BD4-4EE2-B3F2-1F8B49222980@fugue.com> <20190207130313.7g7hf4swaopnr75e@nic.fr> <FD7BFAFF-88B9-49BF-A652-3649ADCD53F9@fugue.com> <637C85D5-EACC-4C39-A220-753AC83FD78A@rfc1035.com> <35CBC108-69C9-4EB9-AACE-EEB39F802456@fugue.com> <1503183837.15474.1549549260349@appsuite.open-xchange.com> <97216205-8415-42F6-BF24-5FFB589FC887@rfc1035.com> <CABtrr-UfwtgmO80A9en0-4tyPKqRRdvwR3BVEQQv+ykrNt-=mg@mail.gmail.com> <f9a06c5d-7af2-46b1-5929-490c22c602bb@time-travellers.org> <CABtrr-WNfQ16FQWmtZFUoCDc1R3rua8zw8FCAr2JBNx4cLyaAA@mail.gmail.com> <1549842687.561412.1655109464.1F2DA0B4@webmail.messagingengine.com> <168d9e46ec8.278b.55b9c0b96417b0a70c4dcaded0d2e1c6@anvilwalrusden.com> <CABcZeBOXevwJne3uY0kMFk0b_w0Hx0e9qsHmBK61JdPd2hruBw@mail.gmail.com> <d122cbe2-3ea4-71cb-b4fb-9f90c7aef7d6@cs.tcd.ie> <CABcZeBN-b+=whs4WjcAE=dg0ie+txjdu8mnjwmPLiTaeNOGgSg@mail.gmail.com> <781D20D5-D130-4B50-B7A9-317C0660FF12@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <781D20D5-D130-4B50-B7A9-317C0660FF12@rfc1035.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 09:35:46 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBP=wHM7AfL2XNG89_iD3PFJZX2HutpK6gArsxoFPd5ZkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
Cc: DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000542f6f0581a1bfa5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/4SNWZ6ECiuNWGelGqHRahLrsQrg>
Subject: Re: [Doh] panel discussion on DoH/DoC
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, 11 Feb 2019 17:36:39 -0000

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:30 AM Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:

> On 11 Feb 2019, at 17:18, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:40 AM Stephen Farrell <
> stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree that picking one like that is no worse and likely better than
> >> round robin or similar, when considering how the DoH servers can affect
> >> the browser user's privacy in "normal" scenarios. I'd guess that the
> >> censorship scenario might call for something else though, esp if the
> >> selected DoH server becomes unresponsive. Be interested if you've
> >> thoughts on that. (Not sure myself what browser behaviours might be
> >> best in such failure cases.)
> >
> > Well, as I said, we haven't really sorted this out. But it's also kind
> of out of scope for this WG.
>
> Hmmm. Wouldn't the WG’s charter commitments on privacy and security apply
> to this topic?
>
> Picking your favourite DoH service/server would probably be out of scope
> for the WG. However I think the privacy and security considerations that
> should be part of that selection decision would be in scope for the WG.
>

Well, the WG was chartered to design this protocol and "analyze the
security and privacy issues". I think the main spec has done that.

Resolver selection seems pretty out of scope for that charter.

-Ekr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email