Re: [Doh] [DNSOP] [Add] [dns-privacy] Do53 vs DoT vs DoH Page Load Performance Study at ANRW

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Mon, 22 July 2019 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
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 6DBAA1200B6; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 fd71GAA_nA1A; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D9221200A3; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux-9daj.localnet (dhcp-9546.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.149.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97B76892E8; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:27:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>, "add@ietf.org" <add@ietf.org>, "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:27:34 +0000
Message-ID: <2239147.6quBxzdCF9@linux-9daj>
Organization: none
In-Reply-To: <FDD73BA4-BA37-41C3-AE92-B32CC1C25DDA@rfc1035.com>
References: <402781F4-33D8-4FD4-8087-FDCEFFF2D549@iseclab.org> <5018674.DSy9L6O0YW@linux-9daj> <FDD73BA4-BA37-41C3-AE92-B32CC1C25DDA@rfc1035.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/HfRzm4MpLuFzD1qb8-jJUoRNU6E>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [DNSOP] [Add] [dns-privacy] Do53 vs DoT vs DoH Page Load Performance Study at ANRW
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: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:27:38 -0000

On Monday, 22 July 2019 21:19:47 UTC Jim Reid wrote:
> > On 22 Jul 2019, at 21:52, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>; wrote:
> > 
> > apparently ECS creates problems for privacy, but _how could we have
> > suspected_?

(that, by the way, was sarcasm.)

> IIRC the ECS privacy issues were recognised at the time.

raised, yes. recognized, no.

> They lost out to
> the argument that CDNs were already doing (or about to do) ECS and it would
> be better (for some definition of better) if this was done in a way that
> had an RFC behind it.

this was said, and was false, at the time. it's more obviously false today, i 
think.

-- 
Paul