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

Daniel Stenberg <> Wed, 23 January 2019 07:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ADD412D84D for <>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 23:26:10 -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 JLorSY42i5EP for <>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 23:26:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1a28:1200:9::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A68E1294D0 for <>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 23:26:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (mail []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-4) with ESMTPS id x0N7PdIq007098 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:25:39 +0100
Received: from localhost (dast@localhost) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id x0N7PbsX007083; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:25:38 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: dast owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:25:37 +0100 (CET)
From: Daniel Stenberg <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
cc: DoH WG <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
X-fromdanielhimself: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Doh] 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: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:26:10 -0000

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> So, does this WG want to adopt this as a work item?

Disclaimer: I used to work for a browser company but I no longer do. I never 
spoke for them anyway.

For me, one of the key elements and features with DoH is that I as a user have 
picked a DNS provider I decide to trust. Be it a global CDN provider or my own 
cloud instance. Any other way, with the ISP or my local network admins telling 
me what server to use, is a major setback in my view.

All forms of opportunistic DoH will make it no better than opportunistic DoT, 
which ultimately will fail to protect my privacy.

At the same time I of course appreciate that there's a problem/challenge here 
with figuring out what DoH server to use and how to even find out that there 
is one offered. If I don't know any servers, getting one or a few suggestions 
might help. For this, this spec offers ways and I'm for the working group 
adopting this.