Re: [Doh] WG Review: DNS Over HTTPS (doh)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Fri, 15 September 2017 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55EEC13423D for <>; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 JFOchvtZLNQo for <>; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D1CE134236 for <>; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l4so2237052ywa.6 for <>; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Kwjb6UwqywCgnmpFBEGJnts7G36kKVsGWtRxWPC2zpE=; b=Ohv17jla+fL2FtJk1OB7hkK5GyB0bfHkmzbh0WLAARhs00n1f2ZcauJU/XjjQYOwnB Iy7e3hqnWsR9fWbeEhBrpAErJtFs4bp9N1RWlJJX9fBjjbR0QZK1TQGt2vWios9rZti1 AD9/090fodr02vcWN2+nbxoUn9EeR5DmeWRQ5hfGlbA8WioGXQOSWXCe4b6NHjDvZFFD PvbsH8CJNjpLzARns2PPaPMwYpTfZZnVFTL5vQXFx7N/4AN4ra/EXb2DonNVaT4YJ6ND WYomqA4NaewRh4eiAR/0FPguRY8Ex+WQdDBCsjOloy8GPQrOqqTQBtHstuCYI4mBzW08 +frg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Kwjb6UwqywCgnmpFBEGJnts7G36kKVsGWtRxWPC2zpE=; b=qzS3XU7fpe0jh8r4q/BF0MzmqQrwQP/byu8fZ6UxdLNvPY+OOU1MFmGFC27fHnNcP5 ucU8hGrWK/0V2F0Q2FSJ/K0D1COCQhiT/yZE0ZNUls/WCgX8smgI6uN1KKe33Wf8aSPG ZPt0cfyntMjddlDORKCqmNJkq77K6YQeN+ZBDVOMIwjo+OiLqjED40gAw1/IAi/a65EK tt0gnBtBw/AGEMpuBj4AHiRvCmECwACny+a9dCWM64hzCDFL107fJdwMf2UHcEYUJEvr 04lomiHWd/rwVhgA72s7dLRIYPJ2Gg7NoW65Q2RRM2eWeNXKPMatTLs+EIbd2Fk5Yna3 XBUA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUj/8nRkATmzvlJ719/TFs7jD+zVv8czS0YDW7378fHUSF33Vrqc RMv+xof2XrGc7nRo0c1ilGOzUQD23LgRtcBfdwxSIQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb5eDWwqP6Q2OUmaEXMo2gey1lMv4BzFknlrdXhNzySCHLuKXXLd+Q+tQfmc6TniNhZHFXNsVxpasuvGXZ4SqZg=
X-Received: by with SMTP id 145mr23415406ybd.38.1505513657236; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:14:16 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c02b62be7f0e055941b644"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Doh] WG Review: DNS Over HTTPS (doh)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 22:14:20 -0000

To a slightly smaller crowd ...

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Paul Hoffman <> wrote:

> On 15 Sep 2017, at 14:44, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> On 15/09/17 20:25, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>> This set of questions is pretty different from the ones you get with
>>> "function over different paths", because the locus of control moves from
>>> the mostly-trusted browser to the mostly not trusted downloaded
>>> application.
>> FWIW, I share Ted's concerns about origins. Regardless
>> of what approaches are taken, the effects of this need
>> to be well understood I think. I don't object to the WG
>> being chartered though but would suggest that there be
>> a mention in the charter that the WG needs to document
>> the consequences, including the dangers, of caching and
>> re-use of DNS answers for likely implementations.
> The charter already points to the document that the work will be based on,
> which has that topic in it, because *you* pointed it out in the earlier
> discussion of the document. As co-author on the document, I assure you we
> will not remove it, if for no other reason than I wouldn't want to face
> your wrath again in IETF Last Call. :-)

I recently pointed out, while complaining about pervasive monitoring in an
AD Evaluation for a TSV document, that not only is a BCP, but if really is the list of reviewers
like says it is,
authors have a non-zero chance of getting an RFC 7258 author as their
sec-dir reviewer ...

The same probability of getting Stephen would apply here.

You are very wise :-)