Re: [Doh] Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-doh-00-12: (with COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

That would help. Thanks Adam

B.
> On 9/28/17 5:06 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> In my first ballot, I mentioned "What I've been failing to understand 
>> from the
>> charter is the rational for DNS over HTTPS? Can you expand on this." 
>> Because
>> I'm not an Web browser and DNS expert, or most likely because the 
>> concerns were
>> not clear in my head, I could not clearly express my thoughts.
>>
>> So I watched the IETF mailing list with attention.
>> Mark Nottingham's email summarized the situation
>>
>>      It's not a matter of constraining the work; the work isn't 
>> proposing to
>>      operate even remotely in the way that you describe. I think 
>> we're just
>>      having a misunderstanding, because people have multiple use 
>> cases in mind
>>      for this protocol, and properties thereof have been mixed up.
>>
>>      AIUI those use cases are, roughly:
>>
>>      1. Configure your browser/OS to use a DOH service for DNS 
>> resolution (as
>>      above) -- this will affect browser/OS state, because it's being 
>> used for
>>      DNS; however, it's not being done from JS.
>>
>>      2. Call a DOH service from Javascript (for some reason) -- note 
>> this is
>>      just like any other HTTP request; it doesn't affect browser/OS 
>> state
>>      outside of the same origin model. Yes, you can still build a
>>      browser-in-a-browser and mess with things inside that context, 
>> but that's
>>      already true today.
>>
>>      3. Future handwavy things like making DNS updates over HTTP -- very
>>      ill-defined and not important for this discussion
>>
>> Expressing #1 and #2 in the charter would have helped me. #2 is kind 
>> of present
>> now. What about the addition the notion of "browser and/or OS" in the 
>> next
>> sentence?
>>
>> The primary focus of this working group is to develop a mechanism that
>> provides confidentiality and connectivity between DNS Clients and 
>> Iterative
>> Resolvers.
>
>
> I think "browser" is likely to confuse the issue, since people are 
> likely to conflate that with JavaScript. Do you think it would be 
> clear enough to say the following?
>
> "The primary focus of this working group is to develop a mechanism that
> provides confidentiality and connectivity between DNS Clients (e.g., 
> operating
> system stub resolvers) and Iterative Resolvers."
>
> /a
>
> .
>