IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] panel discussion on DoH/DoC

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 11 February 2019 00:10 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 A86821295EC for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 16:10:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-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=a7r1Y+/I; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=PIbvphku
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 fTASMvte9gTj for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 16:10:57 -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 AEAEB1295D8 for <doh@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 16:10:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F62BBCBCC; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 00:10:56 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1549843856; bh=VBas1olkbiSh/Dt78QXHP7LH63he2fxknhn8t/6ouR0=; h=From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=a7r1Y+/I5VtILpu1asy7KlfAOvfqKEkgbrrbB3tFTqFXvohTkLrHnwRNIq5LOYyg5 aBVgewf7+T8tQFX9LiIGB6cjLv3RrgfazvYkppemlHYK3ViQjM9yGvB2imNXYbaunY sxGCfDU51gY+6lKE0VOY+gHKpOF5MAj5aIk3xpHE=
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 O3yuRD7rBqnS; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 00:10:55 +0000 (UTC)
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1549843855; bh=VBas1olkbiSh/Dt78QXHP7LH63he2fxknhn8t/6ouR0=; h=From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=PIbvphkujRcS52zD5M+5d8Hfx6XPGJTGTzsaJ8JBDkXT/t6k4ra+USTLEMAW8XZCx lxOUooYNChGZp22+s6LbyB+z+woIPUs2KQKsituH2a3kRR7A/qyJA+XQg+Bs2t9qzl icAc+4So7NoGkxYTCB7W69uz4ZVPEFglUqaywh84=
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, doh@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:10:53 -0500
Message-ID: <168d9e46ec8.278b.55b9c0b96417b0a70c4dcaded0d2e1c6@anvilwalrusden.com>
In-Reply-To: <1549842687.561412.1655109464.1F2DA0B4@webmail.messagingengine.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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/jVPkvnVfT6Nby2Wu4m0Vy0C7L7w>
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 00:10:59 -0000

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 ...?

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

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status