IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] panel discussion on DoH/DoC

Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> Thu, 07 February 2019 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.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 BEC961286D8 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:21:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 YwbqdRK7OykT for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:21:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 653D01292F1 for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:21:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from open-xchange.com (unknown [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CDC56A298; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:21:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com (appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 605A13C0B4B; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:21:00 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 15:20:59 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: doh@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1503183837.15474.1549549260349@appsuite.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <35CBC108-69C9-4EB9-AACE-EEB39F802456@fugue.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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Medium
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.1-Rev3
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/FQWILsBLaw9SDwWV7ROctq9WI9c>
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 14:21:06 -0000

> Il 7 febbraio 2019 alle 15.04 Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> ha scritto: 
> 
> On Feb 7, 2019, at 8:51 AM, Jim Reid < jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
> > These sorts of meta-issues need to be documented and I think this WG might be the best place to do that.
>
> Doh?   Why not DPRIVE or DNSOP?
>
> I agree that we should talk about this; not sure DoH is the right place to have the conversation though.

These are not "meta-issues", these are policy issues, the more so if we accept that there is no problem in the protocol itself, but rather in how it is being used. Moreover, these issues affect lots of non-technical stakeholders, and I suspect that they will soon pop up in several venues other than the IETF. This said, it would still be good to address them at the IETF as well, 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" as one of its objectives. (Though any place could be fine, and some may also argue that this is not really in the scope of any existing WG, since we are not just talking about DNS operators but also about DoH client implementers, though they could easily be the same entity.)

Ciao,
-- 

Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email