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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sat, 16 September 2017 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 9DD26133075; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 09:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 IB0uCYwoPdjF; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 09:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FF2C124B18; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 09:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9D6BE4D; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 17:15:42 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AiX9KjxsmyFq; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 17:15:41 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.244.2.100] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF982BE39; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 17:15:40 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1505578541; bh=x9kK0rVe+ACzlHhteZMjoBoRMtdqdF6Xbn/iYGH8zSw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=YVMHxBZROnYpcGTG+Qcp/Y3B+n39emSfXmd3QJdGIpyUmtsJ9Z6TtNC0af/iIV4nQ mb1vi13T0MQzhH9fgrtslUClgJa9TqIpFy+bhqcqK3SOPaJ+yH/pbwCChR32hn13D4 Au4ZmyZSL5/BebM1rxq2wtJv71j+kDN4Exfs72Lg=
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Cc: doh@ietf.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
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>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <bff51f47-d780-4def-536e-39e53b06c266@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 17:15:40 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwhOpnRt8hw3JmvLgxwWpOXcLs0TwAoCZHDe+816bCRp-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="oItGIV4kQ8E0QraN7kgdRX2RMSeVDFw4B"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/rCRZ6nJGxFHM9KuVlnQVmyJvAaI>
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: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 16:15:47 -0000


On 16/09/17 17:07, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> We had a re-run of the same issues with DPRIV which began with the
> assertion that a solution must be found within a year. 

I don't recall any such assertion. IIRC, DPRIVE was always
considered as the start, within the IETF, of a marathon.
(At least by anyone credible.)

Perhaps you can provide a pointer to that assertion?

Aside from that, I'm not clear who you think is being
ignored with the current proposal, nor what you think
we ought wait upon, so it'd help me understand your
objections if you could clarify those aspects. (FWIW,
as of now, I don't share your concerns in those respects
at all.)

S.