Re: [Doh] panel discussion on DoH/DoC

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Thu, 07 February 2019 13:03 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 0B3C0130DC8 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 05:03:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 MQyPYZ3O1OXj for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 05:03:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (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 C3149130934 for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 05:03:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 9CD8428053A; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 14:03:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (pa-th3.interco.nic.fr [192.134.4.74]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96688280281; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 14:03:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92CE86427BE0; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 14:03:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 86E5D4014E; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 14:03:13 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 14:03:13 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>, doh@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20190207130313.7g7hf4swaopnr75e@nic.fr>
References: <20190207105106.GB1772@server.ds9a.nl> <C7C3BAF7-4BD4-4EE2-B3F2-1F8B49222980@fugue.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <C7C3BAF7-4BD4-4EE2-B3F2-1F8B49222980@fugue.com>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.7
X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-8-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/FkKAlqaRgrp4od-FEvCNq9lO6Xg>
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 13:03:18 -0000

On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 07:55:46AM -0500,
 Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote 
 a message of 90 lines which said:

> You could get into a really big fight with the HRPC folks about this
> statement.

I'll ask them :-)

> DoH is perfectly designed to support the DoC use case, so doesn’t
> that mean that it effectively _is_ DoC?   It’s only _not_ DoC if
> there’s some way to prevent it from being DoC, and there isn’t.
> So you might as well own it.

The protocols are not innocent (they enable, they encourage, they
discourage) but they are not everything either. The dominance of Gmail
is not written in RFC 5321. DoH helps DoC ("helps", not "enables", DNS
over HTTPS was possible before), it does not decide DoC.