Re: [Doh] [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] New: draft-bertola-bcp-doh-clients

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

On Tuesday, 12 March 2019 21:38:44 UTC Stephen Farrell wrote:
> On 12/03/2019 21:11, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > ...
> 
> There are reasons to want confidentiality for DNS queries
> and answers, and access patterns, for which the IETF has
> achieved consensus. (See RFC7626) (*)

i have no qualms about confidentiality, for traffic allowed by a network 
operator. it's the inability to interefere (as called for in RFC 8484) and not 
the inability to observe (as called for in RFC 7626) that's at issue here.

> DoT is one way to tackle those problems. DoH is another.

DoT does not intend to place itself beyond interference by on-path entities, 
and as such, my choice as a network operator is either to allow it through 
even though i can't see the contents, or disallow it. and that's all fine.

DoH intends "to prevent on-path interference with DNS operations", and that's 
well beyond the remit of RFC 7626, and is therefore not spoken to one way or 
another by IETF consensus. i do not believe that a non-interference objective 
would reach broader IETF consensus. perhaps we can test that one day.

vixie