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

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

(I apologize for not reading all 62 messages in this thread first
before replying.  Damned vacations.)

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I appreciate the charter's use of "HTTPS" as a signal that these are
> intended to be TLS-protected HTTP sessions.  I note, however, that there is
> considerable ambiguity still present.  HTTPS can mean HTTP 1.1 over TLS,
> HTTP/2 over TLS, and it may mean HTTP over QUIC at some point soon (in some
> deployments it already means that).

I think that this is not just fine, but correct.  I would object to a change.

We should target HTTP, not a specific version of it.

> While the working group may, of course, change that to
> support HTTP 1.1 and/or QUIC, it might be useful for the charter to indicate
> which of these is potentially in scope.

I would assume, from the title, that it does not matter which of these
protocols is used, therefore the HTTP working group is the primary
point of collaboration.

> If the community is sure now that
> HTTP over QUIC is in scope, for example, having that noted in the charter by
> adding the QUIC working group to list of working groups to consult would be
> useful.

If the QUIC working group produces something that is incapable of
carrying HTTP semantics, then they have failed.  Badly.

Similarly, if this proposed working group produces a protocol that
relies on semantics of a particular version of HTTP such that it
cannot be used with QUIC, then they too have failed.

I don't see any need to consult with QUIC specifically.  I predict
that we can use informal channels, since many of the same people will
be in the two rooms.

> [...] The working group could, of course,
> change that, but it would seriously shift the direction of its input
> document to do so).

If we do that, then we are not meeting the charter as stated.

>>   Apr 2018 - [...]
>
> I admire the optimism in this.

It was originally Dec 2017, so this is about 3 times as long.