Re: [Doh] Working Group Session Agenda @ Prague

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Thu, 14 March 2019 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
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 7A81B130EB5 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 07:23:26 -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, 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 IRDxCZ-cGwQk for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 07:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (shaun.rfc1035.com [93.186.33.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75533130EC9 for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 07:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gromit.rfc1035.com (gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E54D242109D; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:23:19 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <eedd513f-b185-4825-b7a9-49a309c7718a@www.fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:23:16 +0000
Cc: doh@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A7F28D09-F3E1-4DD1-97DC-C05E22DD4F29@rfc1035.com>
References: <23689.7924.461871.555714@gro.dd.org> <eedd513f-b185-4825-b7a9-49a309c7718a@www.fastmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/Wf61t30Lh-0qvjnEksjVD18pSp0>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Working Group Session Agenda @ Prague
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:23:27 -0000


> On 13 Mar 2019, at 22:02, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
> 
> Given the volume of discussion on-list about the latter two talks, and the absence of any significant time for open discussion, what do you expect us to gain from this session?  I fully support spending the bulk of the time here on resolver-associated, but I'm concerned that having the same presentation given twice in the balance of time.  It could be three if you wanted to use the last 10 minutes on draft-bertola-bcp-doh-clients. 
> 
> Having a clear goal in mind might help this be a productive use of time; and - if I might suggest - a shorter period of presentation (maybe Jim can negotiate with his co-author) followed by a very narrowly scoped discussion would be useful. There are lots of different concerns in these drafts, but maybe we can find one key point to concentrate on.  I don't see us being able to settle one, let alone two, but we might get further into a single topic. 

Martin, I’ll be happy to work with Jason and the WG co-chairs so we all make the most productive use of the WG time in Prague.

However it seems unlikely there would be "the same presentation given twice” even if that discussion didn’t take place. The two drafts are very different, albeit with some overlap. And maybe that overlapping material (bypass concerns mostly?) should get moved into yet another draft which might well end up being for another WG.

draft-livingood-doh-implementation-risks-issues and draft-reid-doh-operator discuss quite distinct aspects of the impact of DoH deployment/uptake. IMO both should be considered separately by the WG. It would be a pity if they were somehow smashed together into a single discussion topic for Prague. If that did happen, I fear the discussion would lack focus and probably be inconclusive.

I think the questions to resolve at the WG are:

1) Are the issues identified in draft-livingood-doh-implementation-risks-issues valid/reasonable and does the WG want to work on them?
2) Are the issues identified in draft-reid-doh-operator valid/reasonable and does the WG want to work on them?

And if the answers to q1 or q2 are no, the followup question would be:
	what, if anything, needs to be done to the draft(s) to make them WG compatible?

It would be good if further discussion on the list focused on these 2 or 3 questions.