Re: [Doh] panel discussion on DoH/DoC

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Thu, 07 February 2019 14:28 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 EC0C9127287 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:28:16 -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, 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 zZG7DZvtkx02 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:28:15 -0800 (PST)
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 6DF85126C15 for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:28:15 -0800 (PST)
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 07C9924211EE; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 14:28:13 +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>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <1503183837.15474.1549549260349@appsuite.open-xchange.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 14:28:12 +0000
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, doh@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <97216205-8415-42F6-BF24-5FFB589FC887@rfc1035.com>
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>
To: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/8heWCL9YeVbkZR2ujZMbKEDX2VI>
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: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 14:28:17 -0000


> On 7 Feb 2019, at 14:20, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> wrote:
> 
> but this looks more like a job for DPRIVE, which has the word "policy" in its charter and "Document Best Current Practices for operating DNS Privacy services"

OTOH DoH didn’t exist when DPRIVE was created and what was meant then by DNS privacy is not quite the same as is meant today.

I think DoH is the better choice. Though there’s enough ambiguity/overlap between the WGs that the ADs might need to decide this.