Re: [Ohttp] Discovery

[Andrew Campling <[e-mail]>]

On 25 Jun 2021, at 09:25, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 25 Jun 2021, at 6:22 pm, Andrew Campling <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Noting RFC8890, if the Internet really is for end users then it seems perfectly valid that, at a minimum, consideration should be given to the operational impact of new protocols.  One way to address this would be to undertake some multi-stakeholder engagement to find out whether there are significant operational downsides that should be taken into account.  Whilst I understand that such an undertaking will not be attractive to everyone, it is a reasonable expectation that this is done before a new protocol is introduced if we are to avoid or at least minimise any harmful effects.  
>
>Yes - but there's a difference between doing that work and achieving certainty that there aren't any substantial negative effects on operations.

Achieving certainty may not be possible but that shouldn't prevent us from making the effort.  By engaging with a multistakeholder group, it should be possible to ascertain relatively quickly whether there are likely to be widespread negative effects caused by the introduction of OHTTP.  To be clear, I don't believe that the working group can undertake anything other than a relatively superficial review of the effects without involving a broader group of stakeholders even though it would be much easier that way.   

Moving back to the topic of discovery, experience with DoH highlights the dangers of a working group only completing part of the work where the lack of a discovery mechanism has impaired take up.  There was a delay of around 18 months before the ADD working group could be chartered and work started on discovery; repeating that approach here seems both unnecessary and inefficient.  Why not include discovery in the scope of the charter so that the working group can consider whether a mechanism is required and, if so, provide a suitable solution?  

Andrew