IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] panel discussion on DoH/DoC

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 11 February 2019 00:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 95AFD1295D8 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 16:23:01 -0800 (PST)
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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=OpCndC0l; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=WL5V9lOU
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 LWj2YkkBD-I7 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 16:22:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 217EF12958B for <doh@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 16:22:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22882BCBCC; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 00:22:58 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1549844578; bh=2/GDCQ2SM+FXlih+3rlUwJ3ayc1lKXXVJ2QoLQX+ROI=; h=From:To:CC:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=OpCndC0lBHA7I4L7De7zjFakx8+bKYNynvMXj7nAACKihftpD++vhF4gsIZsUtx6g RlirD8lgVQEWzYvoPxe+2AXJWOVkprxJqAuT9SfpLIigX+sUgjSIbsIr6dFBQ38qgm Q5ibpMY7sxGKv7xI5mJyZGsUjJr3hrMGqZAgp/zs=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BNjcRwmuOWnh; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 00:22:57 +0000 (UTC)
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1549844577; bh=2/GDCQ2SM+FXlih+3rlUwJ3ayc1lKXXVJ2QoLQX+ROI=; h=From:To:CC:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=WL5V9lOUWZII42samQXQ5bo0hnG78C2NGdCc3VwA3fgNd5zSsxK6+1dwd6bESE5X4 ORSL1KRw55rlhjZT3WMXk0sIux6bQ5TokwdhbX6jEzBytpjvhN8MbHBxhehY1F52R5 F0kaIZJ31fkkzrXSsOc+z+yBnCzWvhtYCb0+G3ig=
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
CC: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:22:55 -0500
Message-ID: <168d9ef7318.278b.55b9c0b96417b0a70c4dcaded0d2e1c6@anvilwalrusden.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOXevwJne3uY0kMFk0b_w0Hx0e9qsHmBK61JdPd2hruBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20190207105106.GB1772@server.ds9a.nl> <C7C3BAF7-4BD4-4EE2-B3F2-1F8B49222980@fugue.com> <20190207130313.7g7hf4swaopnr75e@nic.fr> <FD7BFAFF-88B9-49BF-A652-3649ADCD53F9@fugue.com> <637C85D5-EACC-4C39-A220-753AC83FD78A@rfc1035.com> <35CBC108-69C9-4EB9-AACE-EEB39F802456@fugue.com> <1503183837.15474.1549549260349@appsuite.open-xchange.com> <97216205-8415-42F6-BF24-5FFB589FC887@rfc1035.com> <CABtrr-UfwtgmO80A9en0-4tyPKqRRdvwR3BVEQQv+ykrNt-=mg@mail.gmail.com> <f9a06c5d-7af2-46b1-5929-490c22c602bb@time-travellers.org> <CABtrr-WNfQ16FQWmtZFUoCDc1R3rua8zw8FCAr2JBNx4cLyaAA@mail.gmail.com> <1549842687.561412.1655109464.1F2DA0B4@webmail.messagingengine.com> <168d9e46ec8.278b.55b9c0b96417b0a70c4dcaded0d2e1c6@anvilwalrusden.com> <CABcZeBOXevwJne3uY0kMFk0b_w0Hx0e9qsHmBK61JdPd2hruBw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------168d9ef74ef58d7278b49a485f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/eX5niZAnlKDOZwYM7zYkVb89c9s>
Subject: Re: [Doh] panel discussion on DoH/DoC
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: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 00:23:01 -0000

Ah, "operators" was the bit I'd missed. I'm not too sure I feel my heart 
soar over the idea of entrenching by application various vendor 
preferences, but I cheerfully concede that it's already reality anyway.

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
On February 10, 2019 19:16:58 Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> n Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 4:11 PM Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>
> Also, what do you mean exactly by "picking one server"?  The back end state
> surely (!?) won't be shared and there's no reason to suppose names or
> numbers get you to "the same" thing. So ...?
>
> The general idea would be to have a list of DoH servers (operators, not 
> machines) and then to randomly select one for each client. We haven't 
> decided to do this, so also haven't decided on how we'd implement it :)
>
> -Ekr
>
>
> A
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
>
> On February 10, 2019 18:51:37 Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019, at 08:19, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>>> Those are great points and I may have taken some liberty with the the
>>> "multiplexing across many DOH providers" statement as I'm not really sure
>>> what browsers want to do, it just seems like having one or a few options is
>>> not ideal. Anyway, I recognize that the work I'm interested in is not
>>> protocol work (as far as I can tell), so I'll stop bugging folks here!
>>
>> I don't think that this is entirely crazy.  I agree with Shane that trying
>> to load balance between servers or randomly route to servers is likely to
>> be worse than just picking one, but one option we've considered is picking
>> one server randomly and using that consistently thereafter.  (Cue all the
>> second-order questions regarding how to use that for tracking, etc...)
>>
>> There is also talk of finding ways to route requests to servers that might
>> own the same name, but that's far more risky.  In other words, this is not
>> a decided matter because it is so clearly not simple.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Doh mailing list
>> Doh@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Doh mailing list
> Doh@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email