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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 28 September 2017 03:22 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 327E313528D; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GmmMsF-Qvo5H; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63D3B1344E7; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (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 adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Orochi.local
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: doh@ietf.org, doh-chairs@ietf.org
References: <150656826318.13687.17985643866040126735.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <c2b6ec9a-542e-60f0-ce4f-54b1c5101c5a@nostrum.com>
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: <150656826318.13687.17985643866040126735.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/EiateJH6KCu2E8H3YfJ1PffDiiw>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on charter-ietf-doh-00-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 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.

/a