Re: [Doh] Working Group Session Agenda @ Prague

Eric Rescorla <> Thu, 14 March 2019 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC7D130E11 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 oIlsk_P1y5Br for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FD1C12788F for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a132so3122472lfa.13 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VAmtoLfBBY1Yvl9enDDMYldKWml2WhvIdfm7s5nor4o=; b=RFuV7pcK4kFpaTlu3XxHQWv11QM3v4IWkFfNU2jooUzgqUtPS3MDzZoU845Uqe2Bj3 2IqswmsD34frxL5OePjP46x/3eYLTWGa2IFTTGbR6CEBvIANOyE84gYPrlcKIwQVUMi5 kY4tmCBEiW2jKrrwFeU3j4+IGlVaeKgHCzT2qO1qyJ8H7oofiJC6ZPoLua/XmRgMIrS8 pIhVO0w7VhyHpXfmnCh2425Vi8dUxsv8AtwfJnJ9iQovji/8NmIKtZZNRJig4VqzCe6w p5YcA1lXgEh4pfkoh6Cer6rwpOMyWpEHM6nv+1ZrtkdsMdeTtmeNAjXdRCXAJINupqre M9qA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VAmtoLfBBY1Yvl9enDDMYldKWml2WhvIdfm7s5nor4o=; b=skHO3+QQezuvxG9N9wNvMd9TtejB51gN3D5Qes+4HtPWi2r6ymXiDsZCF8bffnxEqP Kub4+eSECLQxWGRawdSYbqLVV6m75SvzYhskcV/vP+iEnS+ElPE516bhjFkzCgUfl+Pn aK/zjKrna0U8D3jx/zbzi6JbXX953ZSO0xhPQ5sjUMffqdDdN+DcId/t0bvvsDWkxfvs E3+rbq9OwgQKHU2qjQQenWimPsv5+nzIm4JJ0lMCpn6qLSwuoWA8wh1MlPlN/9435L4x sThtJCIb+s35GUD63mqSR2iP+WzlUGWg5qg+8AX9ZMLkEtAKRKH43F1PP1TlqAUpCEcH XhCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVW4hfKxVOSc1Tzpxdv2vtb9xc/GWBt0b31LmU7QbBNXR4avxV6 sipoRhCj/fSfZOb3lCX+dFpPHrFbRwnRRbIkl27mA538
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwtMY6NYpKe+Irq7XldVAIADRne1xPrEcKzQk0Q7pwY2rUvfZ+F5q9aAzZ4aeBZh3m3C9KN7Y/wI0OADgzVUXw=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4191:: with SMTP id z17mr28141068lfh.78.1552577845448; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 08:36:48 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Jim Reid <>
Cc: Martin Thomson <>, DoH WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f6e8c905840fb2ae"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Working Group Session Agenda @ Prague
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: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 15:37:30 -0000

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:23 AM Jim Reid <> wrote:

> > On 13 Mar 2019, at 22:02, Martin Thomson <> wrote:
> >
> > Given the volume of discussion on-list about the latter two talks, and
> the absence of any significant time for open discussion, what do you expect
> us to gain from this session?  I fully support spending the bulk of the
> time here on resolver-associated, but I'm concerned that having the same
> presentation given twice in the balance of time.  It could be three if you
> wanted to use the last 10 minutes on draft-bertola-bcp-doh-clients.
> >
> > Having a clear goal in mind might help this be a productive use of time;
> and - if I might suggest - a shorter period of presentation (maybe Jim can
> negotiate with his co-author) followed by a very narrowly scoped discussion
> would be useful. There are lots of different concerns in these drafts, but
> maybe we can find one key point to concentrate on.  I don't see us being
> able to settle one, let alone two, but we might get further into a single
> topic.
> Martin, I’ll be happy to work with Jason and the WG co-chairs so we all
> make the most productive use of the WG time in Prague.
> However it seems unlikely there would be "the same presentation given
> twice” even if that discussion didn’t take place. The two drafts are very
> different, albeit with some overlap. And maybe that overlapping material
> (bypass concerns mostly?) should get moved into yet another draft which
> might well end up being for another WG.
> draft-livingood-doh-implementation-risks-issues and
> draft-reid-doh-operator discuss quite distinct aspects of the impact of DoH
> deployment/uptake. IMO both should be considered separately by the WG. It
> would be a pity if they were somehow smashed together into a single
> discussion topic for Prague. If that did happen, I fear the discussion
> would lack focus and probably be inconclusive.
> I think the questions to resolve at the WG are:
> 1) Are the issues identified in
> draft-livingood-doh-implementation-risks-issues valid/reasonable and does
> the WG want to work on them?
> 2) Are the issues identified in draft-reid-doh-operator valid/reasonable
> and does the WG want to work on them?

> And if the answers to q1 or q2 are no, the followup question would be:
>         what, if anything, needs to be done to the draft(s) to make them
> WG compatible?

Given the extraordinary amount of discussion there has already been
on-list, it's hard to imagine how we could possibly resolve these in 10
minutes each.


> It would be good if further discussion on the list focused on these 2 or 3
> questions.

> Doh mailing list