IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Request to Charter a New Working Group: Oblivious HTTP (OHTTP)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 08 June 2021 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 330883A3CF0; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 13:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 znLpPRIf58BR; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 13:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46C783A3CF1; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 13:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1524438CC6; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 16:37:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id oiEPuxvIb9-H; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 16:37:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1025238CC8; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 16:37:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AF2A75B; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 16:36:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, ohttp@ietf.org, ietf <IETF@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Request to Charter a New Working Group: Oblivious HTTP (OHTTP)
In-Reply-To: <d21c360a-effb-41f2-c229-45f1e4b8a3d6@huitema.net>
References: <162309061157.32548.930649503797136245@ietfa.amsl.com> <d8932acb-397b-25b9-7bab-50c1a313d583@lear.ch> <4800.1623179777@localhost> <d21c360a-effb-41f2-c229-45f1e4b8a3d6@huitema.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 16:36:34 -0400
Message-ID: <28785.1623184594@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/v5QPJB8c-swNweEwqYlYYNnfGQ8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 20:36:46 -0000

Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> wrote:
    >> I didn't think oblivious-DNS was particularly useful either, because it was
    >> basically just turning stub resolvers into mutated full resolvers, without
    >> actually teaching them to do DNSSEC.   If they could do DNSSEC, then we could
    >> trust answers from any place, and then we could do some kind of p2p DNS
    >> queries to get better anonymization (and probably, more resiliency for DNS).

    > I used to believe a variation of that, that if users wanted to hide the IP
    > address of the client sending DNS requests, they could just as well use a VPN
    > and there would be no need for such "oblivious DNS" service. But it turned

I guess that the degenerate case of a p2p DNS is personal VPN.

    > out that oblivious DNS was easier to deploy than VPN services, and also had
    > some very nice privacy characteristics. I think that oblivious HTTP has the
    > same potential, splitting the processing between an initial proxy that knows
    > the client but does not know the requested URL, and an oblivious proxy that
    > knows the requested URL but does not know the source IP address of the
    > client.

You have two proxies here.
I didn't think that the oblivious HTTP mandated two.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email