Re: [Driu] Resolverless DNS Side Meeting in Montreal

Patrick McManus <> Tue, 10 July 2018 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D4561310ED; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 20:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.233
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UVkKhTlb8Yda; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 20:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe6e:e8da]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58EC0130E43; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 20:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C712D3A054; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 23:06:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 13-v6so39883001ois.1; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 20:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2Es9uwiBG8S9Q+I887+w1CIJMQIp9YumyDb+0R1LyWLbHaHYA0 XFYvJvGWvSrdM+OLFvq7PaOVfFFOZjLDS/5Gh0I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpf9TbJJx9QCkXtfqJ2zqOOPvxS7P/NWR5Teg1n7rNi7h5h7Ejnfu5sm5V61DUD0Qi/zdsBIpROuWjGuwEoKQ5M=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:5a45:: with SMTP id o66-v6mr24109264oib.155.1531191987416; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 20:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4a:8a22:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 20:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Patrick McManus <>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 23:06:26 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <>
Message-ID: <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: Patrick McManus <>, Ben Schwartz <>, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <>, DoH WG <>, HTTP Working Group <>, dnsop <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007e3a0705709c6a62"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Driu] Resolverless DNS Side Meeting in Montreal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "DNS Resolver Identification and Use \(DRIU\)." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 03:06:32 -0000

this is essentially a bar bof - though lacking in a bar and I'm fond of
more professional terms so I call it a side meeting. It has no standing. If
you're interested then please come, if you're not or are conflicted then
you're missing anything process wise.

Someday it might graduate to becoming a bof - but I would never put a bof
forward that didn't have a proposal I was comfortable with. This is indeed
a side meeting for anyone interested to see if there is a shared vision for
what such a proposal might look like.

Its not in scope for any wg as there isn't a proposal. Its quite possible
that it might have multiple outcomes which are in scope for multiple
application groups; I've tried to cc the likely suspects here.  But that is
presupposing outcomes.


On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> This sounds an awful lot like an unapproved bof. The reason we don’t do
> those is that they tend to make it hard for people to participate. Why
> isn’t this in scope for dnsop?
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:49 PM Patrick McManus <>
> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I am organizing an ad-hoc Side Meeting regarding 'Resolverless DNS' in
>> Montreal.
>> We have often talked about the benefits and concerns of DNS information
>> obtained from sources that are, shall we say, less globally trusted than a
>> recursive a resolver. The central use case is DoH when pushed from an
>> endpoint that isn't a recursive resolver but there have been other
>> proposals.
>> For example pushes you a AAAA record for
>> Should you use it? What if it is for ? Do the
>> relationship between these domains matter? What kind of relationship (i.e.
>> it could be a domain relationship, or in the context of a browser it might
>> be a first-party tab like relationship, etc..)? What are the implications
>> of poison? Trackers? Privacy of requests never made? Speed? Competitive
>> shenanigans or DoS attacks?
>> This was out of scope for DoH.
>> *We'll do the meeting over 1 hour in the Dorchester room from 16:30 to
>> 17:30 on Monday July 16th.*
>> This is a meeting of interested folks looking to see if we can agree on
>> next steps - we're not going to work out the details (nor should a side
>> meeting try and do so). so we'll have a tight agenda that I suggest
>> organizaing as follows:
>> 1] What forms of transport could be in scope? HTTP/2 push is one such
>> vector, but I've heard others. Spray paint for example.
>> 2] What needs to be considered when using such data? (signatures? scope?
>> etc?)
>> 3] Who are the stakeholders for 1 + 2?
>> 4] Is there enough interest to explore further? Next steps as output
>> I hope you can come!
>> -Patrick
>> _______________________________________________
>> DRIU mailing list