Re: [Ohttp] Robert Wilton's Block on charter-ietf-ohttp-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

> I also find the scope of the charter to be somewhat unclear.
Specifically, it
> isn't really clear to me whether the aim of this work is really for a
generic
> oblivious HTTP mechanism to hide clients from servers, or whether it is
really
> intended to be a point solution to support oblivious DNS over DoH?

Not just ODoH, but other things of that flavor.


> Some other points that a BOF could consider (particularly if this work is
> mostly focused on Oblivious DNS over DoH):
>
> - What it the latency performance overhead of introducing the proxies
given the
> large number of DNS queries and given that they are performance sensitive
to
> the end user experience?

I would assume quite low, as there is essentially no processing
by the proxy. Presumably approximately the same as a DND recursive
resolver. Perhaps Apple has some data from their initial ODoH
deployments.


> - Who is creating/managing these proxies and what trust relationship does
the
> end user have to these proxies?

See my response to Eric.


> - Do proxies impact the ability to do "malware detection as a service"?
I.e.,
> are there scenarios where the profiling of DNS requests coming from a
> particular source address is helpful for clients.

Maybe? But clients who want that service can not use this service.


> - Is this technology encouraging more centralization of Internet services?

No.


-Ekr

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 7:58 AM Robert Wilton via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-ohttp-00-00: Block
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ohttp/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> BLOCK:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I support Eric's discuss position that it would be helpful to hold a BOF
> before
> chartering the WG to ensure that opinions have been heard and considered
> from
> all areas.
>
> I also find the scope of the charter to be somewhat unclear.
> Specifically, it
> isn't really clear to me whether the aim of this work is really for a
> generic
> oblivious HTTP mechanism to hide clients from servers, or whether it is
> really
> intended to be a point solution to support oblivious DNS over DoH?
>
> Some other points that a BOF could consider (particularly if this work is
> mostly focused on Oblivious DNS over DoH):
>
> - What it the latency performance overhead of introducing the proxies
> given the
> large number of DNS queries and given that they are performance sensitive
> to
> the end user experience?
>
> - Who is creating/managing these proxies and what trust relationship does
> the
> end user have to these proxies?
>
> - Do proxies impact the ability to do "malware detection as a service"?
> I.e.,
> are there scenarios where the profiling of DNS requests coming from a
> particular source address is helpful for clients.
>
> - Is this technology encouraging more centralization of Internet services?
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Should a discovery mechanism be in scope, if not in the initial work for
> this
> working group, as a secondary objective?
>
>
>
> --
> Ohttp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ohttp
>