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

Martin Thomson <> Mon, 25 September 2017 10:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD8EE1332D7; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 03:24:28 -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 eS7nFBeAnl8k; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 03:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DDD213320C; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 03:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u130so5745204oib.11; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 03:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WvAp0Rxs0sDtlxtMD/AYmNjiSQf1uICOcS1RhzLHHiA=; b=ukAvMFmPEOoNKQQlWnQcUh1TFuw75Lcqe1h/CI/YR0MXHkgZbGHSkqXtW+/o40Ty2d dQfiavbtUHOJIogHDuQWUlY2eA/XqMwO520BqmNySzdH4R8WdkHOyvjA7kor4cYy226u 5H7yfKNmYItBM7+ie/Xd0+NOMKhQRN3hnj2e0fBzkU8wPtOc5aBGStyY1kYLYAcclyfu +xRX436uGFWUb9Qu+UnKfoXfb9z1qzcex20EhCO/OEeYm5cerrDR6QHJHqIM3x3gr2HW 0H32bmaJt7hTjwDgjBB/qMvytm1K8h7VHDD/bm0zd1ISg6w2zRWSdjrAJDQFT8l+R+g5 UmNA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WvAp0Rxs0sDtlxtMD/AYmNjiSQf1uICOcS1RhzLHHiA=; b=chaPLGVdLWptge4hamysSrjZUW3tErqJKRhWWoSbuwhBNg7VX2OJ/rePLLavEmPKhx YipvD28Xuc1yHdrISFAkb4zaJ0g/hihPn8uuoWvZyKrWIR9WxKMue//jQLJTH6aCf5nL HhQ6xsqUNHJ5ZXGpzmmqfypOMIOHjXwr/EnKNxrIbmMyFbd3Gk2Cp5yzdY9D2xqLzpm4 U9mfEA+/MOwJhonXV6wPtrTQrnl2qGmbtr8DHGLbJ6/Vubzs9Y+9IhU/xqEXRqgUEAiz VlGpZRIH6FDlvydZ43TSAzt+jR9fgmbHA2jjRDP2Im9DM26JWOXe028T/2xPPRF0aK1/ j8Pw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhtnq7HIuilPwAHYTGvrUxUs+/2zB53AMkNHRWeodPspL94kJol VHr+WrxnAQMM2qV/6h8eLV9BMP+bzbJJSn3DNvI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCx23b+fY/jqBg5nu5Nco1Py6F3kwsCSKY2OBL5TVVnpoNAIEqYiLk0SMsKm1OP+i9P4zxLWZg4yMijsQdhshs=
X-Received: by with SMTP id u12mr25384otd.113.1506335066560; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 03:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 03:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:24:25 +1000
Message-ID: <>
To: Ted Hardie <>
Cc: IETF <>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 07:58:02 -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: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:24:29 -0000

(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 <> 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.