IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] Working Group Session Agenda @ Prague

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Thu, 14 March 2019 15:46 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 57548130E89 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:46:44 -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 v8NlY_DOsn4D for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:46:42 -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 8BB6812788F for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gromit.rfc1035.com (gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.69]) (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 1316C242109D; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 15:46:40 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOAuQDd3EVFwwf2DO0mXZUgu4-iWfAaHRfNR_V+meZpsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 15:46:39 +0000
Cc: DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8EB4385E-69A7-49BF-B4D1-EEA1F42BF81F@rfc1035.com>
References: <23689.7924.461871.555714@gro.dd.org> <eedd513f-b185-4825-b7a9-49a309c7718a@www.fastmail.com> <A7F28D09-F3E1-4DD1-97DC-C05E22DD4F29@rfc1035.com> <CABcZeBOAuQDd3EVFwwf2DO0mXZUgu4-iWfAaHRfNR_V+meZpsQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/6Pv2ROBoVuokJubH-WqgOXo-Hy4>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Working Group Session Agenda @ Prague
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 15:46:45 -0000


> On 14 Mar 2019, at 15:36, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> 
> Given the extraordinary amount of discussion there has already been on-list, it's hard to imagine how we could possibly resolve these in 10 minutes each.

True. That’s why I suggested having focused discussions about them on the list. The discussions to date have gone off at a tangent (or two).

Here’s what I suggested earlier today:

I think the questions to resolve at the WG are:

1) Are the issues identified in draft-livingood-doh-implementation-risks-issues valid/reasonable and does the WG want to work on them?
2) Are the issues identified in draft-reid-doh-operator valid/reasonable and does the WG want to work on them?

And if the answers to q1 or q2 are no, the followup question would be:
	what, if anything, needs to be done to the draft(s) to make them WG compatible? 


I hope the WG can concentrate on these questions in the run-up to Prague.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email