Re: [Doh] [Ext] Re: Request for the DOH WG to adopt draft-hoffman-resolver-associated-doh

Paul Hoffman <> Tue, 29 January 2019 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D5312D84D for <>; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 07:00:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ko9hvVKjfpNa for <>; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 07:00:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 899CF126F72 for <>; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 07:00:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 07:00:18 -0800
Received: from ([]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 07:00:18 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>
CC: DoH WG <>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] Re: [Doh] Request for the DOH WG to adopt draft-hoffman-resolver-associated-doh
Thread-Index: AQHUt+HBURczai/z9E2ZPYsO01pXOqXG3QmA
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:00:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] Re: Request for the DOH WG to adopt draft-hoffman-resolver-associated-doh
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:00:23 -0000

On Jan 29, 2019, at 6:48 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <> wrote:
> In the current draft, I have a big concern about the idea of an
> application (for instance the Web browser) having a specific DNS
> resolver (section 5 of draft -07), different from the rest of the
> applications on the same machine.

If you have this concern, you need to bring it up with the browser vendors, not with this WG. I have been informally told that both Firefox and Chrome have them (but I have not checked).

> It will be a nightmare to debug DNS
> issues with such a setup. We cannot prevent people for doing bad
> choices like this one but we should not condone it in a RFC.

You first have to have the discussion of whether or not this is a bad choice. There will likely be differing opinions. That is, I suspect that the browser vendors didn't spend the time and effort to put them in just for fun: they felt a need. I totally understand that this will cause debugging to be more difficult, but that is true for a lot of things added in modern browsers.

> IMHO, the
> correct setup is a shared DoH client, running on the local machine
> (stubby, systemd-resolve, etc) or on the CPE.

...and yet there is no indication that such a thing exists today, nor is planned by any of the OS vendors.

(Side note: given how crappy CPE software is consistently shown to be, I am horrified that you suggest to put anything there in the same message where you talk about "nightmare to debug".)

> [This is a purely technical issue, different for the more political
> one raised by Bert Hubert.]

It has the same effect, however. If a user is smart enough to have an opinion like "I trust my {browser|OS} vendor more than my {OS|browser} vendor", some will pick one and some will pick the other.

--Paul Hoffman