Re: [Doh] DNS over HTTP/3?

Az Mankin <> Fri, 23 November 2018 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB1CB12F1A5 for <>; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 19:43:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iN_e-pMoIC-L for <>; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 19:43:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5633D130DE0 for <>; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 19:43:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id f18so7994058otl.11 for <>; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 19:43:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=O8afrFdSinjbbNZek00NBC9d8ex6kTHXzQyMAnGn//k=; b=HJpe1tOb4zAO4DUEnWGxIGyHy3NCAPHpIzi+x6JO3XqH/K17fRSQ1KhjR7lQdMj7QY AYojR6j0UgPlJXMG6VUD7nFnaU57Rgf8735AP+fNePcAI79SDiz+P4geBrq8QChaj+NU 32pLrH4EKInr8M/FmQhn+X+D3nekCQoUKgI8lvc+ohJnNpxrT9OweQu2qurqdQtJuPIl bZ0e3lhajxiGMVbK1c3QOBM+VfWSVyXzzKgvIBHNoaa1XXyN5GFgb0yr/SORgdVa4ogg Hg6wDLM5TJNNwXO3WGfdhTxlxZy5scVApWMgEQAI4kejmiaJrPtdGqCviO/IT4H3Thxv XuVw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=O8afrFdSinjbbNZek00NBC9d8ex6kTHXzQyMAnGn//k=; b=GSo+H3Ri98yShcekY/ydWIwC6xi3i70wBuGaQqQKlqUR2CNulDbPtJrmYsge+oddGX j/MmSARR+Oa7P/sco+oEmWJlSbDhopAhpCB3tQ2gHE0yZG4YFpc99JhzGCSzm4Q49FEV +RvnZI8Agu27SOaOkSG66y5oP34yfcFzI6UkEYfzAJR6ZTNbq6gLnRwTkOztnpf5MOXS WOjiRPqo2eIKUdumi/zQmX1jQvcURYtQli8qoFG8iSOD3Cvh618GpZUt3XKhgmO1DYNc fhyqbbfdMctJbCy+mohiaXCwwhcAABfbFUkjZM3q6skpHRkAHFa1OW/eCzI4CyMO8YoP R+Mg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZwqdlHog0nQc3g3Cq7sB63L41wpNkl3O3HHa3SZ5Y2pHD2LJ6I cdaiNDotjDxvKQFGF8CpA341yfl0Yml6CTiOdN4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/VPAW8d6TpEolWq9q4lw7VBak6ifKKdfElC/DaBpjqIN1JV4566r80DzJw67xWv4nL/GDh6Uua+M/pMYhiyjk4=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6a8e:: with SMTP id l14mr7444959otq.348.1542944621576; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 19:43:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Az Mankin <>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 22:43:30 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: bert hubert <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000013c816057b4ccacb"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Doh] DNS over HTTP/3?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 03:43:46 -0000


>In other words, to the sound of a groaning >camel, do we need a draft? Or a
>section in the HTTP/3 I-D?

Please take a look at

It was introduced in the QUIC WG and revised as QUIC evolved (and as some
prototype stacks by the authors gave results).  It needs a refresh now.
QUIC made it low priority while working on the HTTP transport.

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 5:10 AM bert hubert <>

> Hi everyone,
> Now that we are still here, perhaps some work is left for us, but I'm not
> sure.
> I've observed that the thousands of users of (I also do
> not
> know how this happened) take around 22 packets per DNS query/response.
> Larger scale adoption of TLSv1.3 might improve this somewhat, but it is a
> big number.
> I've also personally observed that a "slightly suboptimal" network
> absolutely kills browsing performance in Firefox Nightly using DoH.  A
> naive
> calculation shows that 0.5% packet loss turns into a 5% failure rate per
> DoH
> query, which then can cause Head of Line blocking for further queries,
> which
> cascades into "blank pages" getting rendered.
> Of course, once we have HTTP/3, DNS over HTTP/3 would suffer way less from
> incidental packet loss, and in general there would be a lot less packets
> too.
> My question now is, is there any specific work to be done for DoH/3? Are
> there number, priorities, features you'd want or not want to use to make
> things work well?
> In other words, to the sound of a groaning camel, do we need a draft? Or a
> section in the HTTP/3 I-D?
> And, perhaps somewhat more provocatively, should we maybe not start pushing
> DoH/2 if it leaves people with a sub-standard experience, causing them to
> disable DoH?  DoH/3 might be somewhat of a wait but it might prevent that
> sour taste from developing.
> I'd love to hear your thoughts!
>         Bert
> _______________________________________________
> Doh mailing list