IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] New I-D: draft-reid-doh-operator

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Mon, 11 March 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 C95D31310D7 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 08:00:09 -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 GcOPJRLcZ-AG for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 08:00:07 -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 92305131159 for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 08:00:07 -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 99F54242109D; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:00:04 +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: <20190310080101.GA11452@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:00:03 +0000
Cc: DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B067DFE3-3EF9-4F04-A211-D1BB52EDE66B@rfc1035.com>
References: <155218771419.28706.1428072426137578566.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <FACB852B-4BC4-4234-A728-9068708EFB10@rfc1035.com> <20190310080101.GA11452@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/CC4po_NYmIDTRxbBFW2tDPC-hMI>
Subject: Re: [Doh] New I-D: draft-reid-doh-operator
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 Mar 2019 15:00:10 -0000


> On 10 Mar 2019, at 08:01, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
> 
> I'm surprised that it is published more or less at the same time
> draft-livingood-doh-implementation-risks-issues. They have a lot of
> overlap, and even one author in common. May be a merge would be a good
> idea?

Maybe, though I’m not sure that’s a good idea.

Although there is overlap in content between the two drafts, the underlying focus of both documents are very different. They don’t overlap.

Another way forward might be to take out the common material from both drafts and out that into yet another I-D (for dnsop?) which examines the privacy/security aspects. [Some of those aspects are already in draft-bertola-bcp-doh-clients, so maybe that could be a new home for this material?] That would leave the DoH WG with a draft that considers the consolidation and aggregation issues. And another draft that looks at the impact of DoH uptake in operator networks.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email