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

Tim Wicinski <> Sun, 17 September 2017 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E1F1332DF; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 Li5i7VNx14AA; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C32991321CB; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q11so14158328ioe.10; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cVysbBT7nGiA+m5LB9gCJsKzwWecVElpvdgjiJ4xZ3Y=; b=taKoGROe6HMroWVW6DWYpTS8+/bFbPsZQTjP+gPCPjHTN7ENtmT9oTxazJ5pPzvKE0 FE3IN074buZemD/IBfqarTnylEuYjuN5gxkWXARkKqLcVOZN1atrgXq8/5WAYjEMu/xk YNtXvIII6ijuU0TH8QcJwdZdJzqVT1q7NO43RW7kisFc1tCMqciMDYD8r/XOS19wItKP Upvutvm5TYYtPTToiJQNyUn+7/BtTOZSQJWwEaieDv98hkPySgGJEfVuiROfg9x3agW5 Okc94gzKORYmIhc89vQ+GXFcFjpkB82GdAt82yd220JD0/96eGXH9hj1BCmNhsWH+FQC gplw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cVysbBT7nGiA+m5LB9gCJsKzwWecVElpvdgjiJ4xZ3Y=; b=N4NJThz94hAbrJuEvr+OJuzZvf5F3numDBL6q5f7j2tuFYsR3uH3NWlD5/a/1EeUY0 Yfjuu/bxjV7W/Bs7/cHHvCyTHrrfarTW0D4+nFIWiZy/q7lJNi2LPZR3bbBt1nvNgb6o HubuvmcBkC0rpBmL2vYaJ2jOYrQn0ZapywDn5kcID8KM/QbU+EZ+TacW5KryzPJOYtNS ONib1Wf8a4rWgkYL8+9YfzT+4ofnT8XRaPNnyU9Vc554ezUTRxavmlZhgBAVq5hIq2A4 jehvrNnKNB/hO1YaSWiL90Ji1qNgB88vK39ob/9f1+E79+hkoagm+Qm9/u+MdjJrwotS BzXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhZJ7WaWa4X0Kj34uxjYoDHwUahfCxf8N4pmiFc8zbb9sZmp0Re Ot+eO9rudVQQHBBf
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QD72ViPg/FV8DLLbEM9Oilx3sbzIZRFh1Fv89vh7t8U6Qmcfm9UgpxPCHBDuUTbA9O2XZpUKA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id z67mr17688493ioe.81.1505672646690; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id k133sm476100itd.0.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: Stephen Farrell <>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <>, Patrick McManus <>
Cc:, IETF <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Tim Wicinski <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 14:24:04 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 08:01:38 -0700
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: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 18:24:09 -0000

On 9/16/17 12:15 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> On 16/09/17 17:07, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> We had a re-run of the same issues with DPRIV which began with the
>> assertion that a solution must be found within a year.
> I don't recall any such assertion. IIRC, DPRIVE was always
> considered as the start, within the IETF, of a marathon.
> (At least by anyone credible.)
> Perhaps you can provide a pointer to that assertion?
> Aside from that, I'm not clear who you think is being
> ignored with the current proposal, nor what you think
> we ought wait upon, so it'd help me understand your
> objections if you could clarify those aspects. (FWIW,
> as of now, I don't share your concerns in those respects
> at all.)
> S.

As DPRIV co-chair, I agree with Stephen's assertion that this was always 
going to be a marathon.  Now Phillip is correct in some respects - I 
felt *a* solution for the stub to recursive resolver piece could be 
worked out within a year.  But I've always felt the IETF was all about 
iteration: Let's come up with a solution; let's write some code and 
deploy some infrastructure; let's measure the behavior and the 
usefulness of what was done; and in the interim let's keep looking at 
other ideas.

The next steps within DPRIV are around the recursive resolvers talking 
to authoritative servers; and this is something Terry (our wonderful AD) 
and myself see as a much harder problem, and one most likely that will 
end in failure.