IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] some privacy ponderings wrt HTTPs and plain DNS

Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> Tue, 19 June 2018 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <pmcmanus@mozilla.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 9A73C1310FF for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.233
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 SvqYFZtBRW9S for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linode64.ducksong.com (www.ducksong.com [192.155.95.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB837130F56 for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-f175.google.com (mail-ot0-f175.google.com [74.125.82.175]) by linode64.ducksong.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C3693A055 for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 11:28:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-f175.google.com with SMTP id a5-v6so79213otf.12 for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0TdW1woKE6YEHJajgX1871eN+dSM0Pi7a5OwokfwpoxPyyWVBj l5pewoONesirYD2FJfQwW9CENQPP4vC70Ob0e8M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKL4d5OcVHa6O/Rf/XTf95Bab55OQsV8Xze6EQvhZCoqshmV1cehV1y56I2CqyFCUdRYb31Ifr4JshFPjtyu95Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:2f2a:: with SMTP id h39-v6mr10040560otb.214.1529422088749; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4a:8a32:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AC7EF4EF-17DA-4181-B123-D2F82BBDF1C9@sinodun.com>
References: <20180618112116.GB9195@server.ds9a.nl> <d137a136-d456-8de2-b682-512edd86b1f7@riseup.net> <E4082C8A-8D16-4F13-82ED-C9F68F66A2A1@sinodun.com> <CAOdDvNrnfxxQ__G_kKn4Fe4jcwcQUZfOb4aNAE6+bjvSrfLcmA@mail.gmail.com> <0D08F629-1719-440D-B4B4-A474CF90B865@sinodun.com> <CAOdDvNrKhV83ZmCX=KWHx49PtFVO2eTzY+GOxjEzEVd6Auj4Nw@mail.gmail.com> <AC7EF4EF-17DA-4181-B123-D2F82BBDF1C9@sinodun.com>
From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 11:28:07 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNrRv-f0yT+DDghhkdgTTb7-Bh818OQubByouBZ6LQrVdg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNrRv-f0yT+DDghhkdgTTb7-Bh818OQubByouBZ6LQrVdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com>
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, nusenu <nusenu-lists@riseup.net>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>, bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004fe487056f00546d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/XrJg85f9duZ3A4On76TkwVwJyoI>
Subject: Re: [Doh] some privacy ponderings wrt HTTPs and plain DNS
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:28:12 -0000

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com> wrote:

>
>
> Ok, but my point was going to be that… doesn’t the decision on when this
> issue gets dealt lie with the WG and chairs, not the document authors?
>

Of course! But Ben already announced we were moving to the next phase on
May 29th. So I'm just trying to communicate how we get the new issue
integrated given where we're at.


OK - so essentially in this specification of DoH the DoH protocol inherits
> the privacy qualities of HTTPS, it is not attempting to maintain or impose
> those of existing DNS over UDP/TCP/TLS wrt user identifiability.
>


I broadly agree.


>
> Given that, here is some text as a proposed starting point for a Privacy
> Considerations section - it is intended mainly as an ‘analysis’ of the
> current situation and I fully expect the recommendations at the end to be
> the subject of debate :-)
>
>
thanks for text! That's helpful...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email