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

Adam Roach <> Mon, 25 September 2017 22:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 152E71345E1; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x5pXLfwOU1sY; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFB411345DF; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v8PMu5wi067613 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 25 Sep 2017 17:56:06 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be
To: IETF <>
References: <> <>
From: Adam Roach <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 17:56:05 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------EA26A737521FBF11CDD570BA"
Content-Language: en-US
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: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 22:56:09 -0000

Thanks to everyone who commented on the proposed charter for 
DNS-over-HTTPS. I have noted four main categories of discussion:

 1. Whether to rule specific versions of HTTP in or out of scope of the
    charter.  While the consensus here was rough, there were more
    proponents of leaving the version out than baking it in. I further
    observe that leaving version out of the charter does not preclude
    the WG from reaching consensus that requires or precludes certain
    versions from being used.

 2. Discovery of DNS-over-HTTPS servers. Again, consensus was rough, but
    I find slightly more people in favor of allowing discovery than
    those opposed to its inclusion. I will be adding language to the
    charter proposal that allows such work if those parties interested
    in specifying such mechanisms show up in the working group. If no
    such critical mass shows up, the WG will be allowed to close without
    performing such specification.

 3. Scope of work: whether DNS-over-HTTPS servers are accessed normal
    stub resolver libraries or via JavaScript. The proposed charter now
    contains text clarifying that the JavaScript use case is not the
    primary motivation, but that the WG will not take steps to preclude it.

 4. Regarding the question of whether to perform the work at all (or
    whether to perform the work now): the analysis for starting a
    working group generally hinges on whether a viable group of willing
    and capable participants exists to complete such work, without
    regard to those who wish the work not to take place. While
    exceptions to this generality may certainly exist, I find no reason
    the proposed working group is special in this dimension.

The revised version of the proposed charter can now be found at: