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

Adam Roach <> Thu, 28 September 2017 03:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327E313528D; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GmmMsF-Qvo5H; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63D3B1344E7; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v8S3Mjbm013481 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Sep 2017 22:22:46 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be Orochi.local
To: Eric Rescorla <>, The IESG <>
References: <>
From: Adam Roach <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 22:22:47 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on charter-ietf-doh-00-12: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 03:22:48 -0000

On 9/27/17 22:11, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I think this new text about JS is going in the right direction, but perhaps it
> straddles the line too much.
> Say that -- contra the text here -- we discovered some respect in which it was
> more convenient to design the protocol in a way that made JS break. Would the
> charter require us not to do that? I think the answer is "no", but I just want
> to verify that.

The charter would allow that. I suspect that there's a good chance that 
WG consensus wouldn't fall in line with a proposal to do so, but I think 
that the WG is the right group of people to make such a decision.