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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 22 September 2017 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 D78B713239C; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 18:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=rtwkG8mC; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=GaMPNz05
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 pwyC_E1t3dWl; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 18:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D741913209C; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 18:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CDFC213F1; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 21:07:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 21 Sep 2017 21:07:43 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=/jiGUis0inqL6Y0lhl uCiUPWGUKAjYhKUeJLLzX8VgQ=; b=rtwkG8mCuTUU9BF8Db5O/9Lqo+C9h1d8z9 akGeOjqUn7AUGZS/lhmHaxOiZrHCN23evzbolCScwGvuJJD4LCbcVP+e0+d9izaG Hti7e8lCeHCsaG6z/+0ZPw6fJTOxhrkz8jkVzVC2MNdlBwiixTZtQSKh6rfVZ87v Fqe/JmEAyKLUoZiWWvrXyWXTR/owARYeCgZL6bdTpRy3HZ2GCbdkhnnfeaG1V+gZ 3VZW4NsI8SvUiW7gzMDtSBjfSuUFkEJMbkrX8ygZxVu3C9tTv3zyGzMXpatutsLm vN7LQePpaENyjwfEYHLwjDSJ9YKZBo1q3egC4w900YwYtvt+ZOug==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=/jiGUis0inqL6Y0lhluCiUPWGUKAjYhKUeJLLzX8VgQ=; b=GaMPNz05 kBce928uslQnx0kpFUTB+n7p37siCvgnF8fZEENxdkavN9lmRc8UncTlclnqOwOt nDn4IQP2tPLL540EVYQhLA2xEYrfh0JxWddJBaXXiwjASINekyvduSo3h0Pq4xP/ ShXYcp7cqieyKXKLYsRfM96+ZGMufeF2SL3EOFP0Z+eJcBDNYJdHEX4hz5OxLGMD jn1EsXzHYwuN3srtiafUhAAF9p2MWU4qKGwPnLqmAzY2PwEA32sCJN4WaJQ3qBT/ pQWnceWyB6R1nJJ2+uoelrBzFBZb4OOL1kLAuOqAgS2qs5XUdNCHf/ckZZ6wPo8y DoilIdjW5pfgGQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:X2LEWU_sLXhTS9qB4M9YTIO8ZZtNl8YcgPeDF9mg0uP7aHlseiotgw>
X-Sasl-enc: LSh5SSloizhcuDTV1OZNJkBBWo3tqDxu/Awjn++QNot/ 1506042462
Received: from [10.223.64.64] (unknown [1.152.254.127]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 59DB07E1D2; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 21:07:42 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-E434DE27-F265-4E29-B446-D02CDEEDCFC9
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15A372)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwgYK5TjBq-QLNcbJjde-pS8-A+=kWDD67cyfp+k_0VzDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:07:38 +1000
Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Ask_Bj=C3=B8rn_Hansen?= <ask@develooper.com>, doh@ietf.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <5BD60394-42BD-45E4-A964-A7F53C540FBC@mnot.net>
References: <150549029332.2975.12341647131707994474.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+9kkMBJAP23GmGf_ix-DMeOMB=Rbas+qsBQhrVwZuA5-Cv7Mg@mail.gmail.com> <EB3D58DB-1F8D-4E32-AE71-841EBCDDC3CA@vpnc.org> <42309404-8991-5d1d-7834-59087f273d41@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMDokEDbBiCR_TRQda2RBHxoHag6mQL57Uzn7ALqakm1Og@mail.gmail.com> <271db5c4-8d29-5a0d-cf7f-58e1e3831c30@cs.tcd.ie> <05C29362-CD48-429C-92FA-7F402869E58C@vpnc.org> <1e8323a8-4afc-397f-209e-099ffca212f6@cs.tcd.ie> <CAOdDvNqOnzpi5fujYGccUFt3oS4if+vALE6dkb9e8eJUh9o_OQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwhOpnRt8hw3JmvLgxwWpOXcLs0TwAoCZHDe+816bCRp-Q@mail.gmail.com> <A66B9492-D51B-4021-9B65-71284C215595@develooper.com> <CAMm+LwgYK5TjBq-QLNcbJjde-pS8-A+=kWDD67cyfp+k_0VzDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/i8hXajQnqrduxb4lPBHtLNv9jmc>
Subject: Re: [Doh] WG Review: DNS Over HTTPS (doh)
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 01:07:47 -0000

I suppose, although it would be good to understand if perf problems to a dhcp configured resolver are widely encountered. 

I wouldn’t be against text in the charter that allows the wg to consider mirroring currently defined (by the ietf) dns discovery mechanisms. I’d be against definition of new ones. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Sep 2017, at 3:40 am, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Ask Bjørn Hansen <ask@develooper.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> > On Sep 16, 2017, at 9:07, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > 1) I see no evidence that HTTP/2 is suited to Web Services or will be dominant in that role. HTTP/2 was designed to serve Web Browsing to the exclusion of all other concerns. Which was the right choice to make.
>> 
>> HTTP/2 is also better for services with many small requests, in particular on high latency connections (or where each response might be slow to start…).
> 
> ​If Web Services actually used HTTP features other than Firewall bypass and framing of transactions, then HTTP/2 might be attractive. ​Given how little of the HTTP stack is used and given that QUIC is a much closer match, that is the route I want to take.
> 
> I think it likely QUIC will eat up COAP as well. 
> 
> Just think of QUIC a way of doing TCP/2 in a way that is compatible with the protocol stacks as deployed in the field. At some point there will be a way to specify the service endpoint in a consistent fashion.
> 
>