Re: [Ohttp] Discovery

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:35 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:

> Back from a short break; I'll take the opportunity to thank folks for the
> constructive discussion.
>
> I'm reading from the messages here that following DoH/ADD in ruling
> "discovery" topics completely off-limits was unwise and that this working
> group shouldn't repeat that mistake.

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here, because the DoH charter
*didn't* rule discovery out of scope. To the contrary, the charter (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-doh/00-13/) says:

  The working group may define mechanisms for discovery of DOH servers
  similar to existing mechanisms for discovering other DNS servers if
  the chairs determine that there is both sufficient interest and
  working group consensus.

Moreover, as I said earlier, I think the difficulty that ADD is
experiencing defining a widely applicable mechanism bears out the
decision not to gate deployment on discovery.

Put that way, the flaws in the proposed charter are just obvious.
>
> I've tried to amend the discussion on scope to accommodate that feedback,
> along the lines Jason suggested.  That is, keep the discussion of how OHTTP
> is used entirely in-scope, but prioritize the core protocol work.
>
> It's a small change, so here 'tis:
> https://github.com/unicorn-wg/ohttp-charter/pull/3
>
> +The working group will prioritize work on the core protocol elements as
> +identified.  Specific uses of this core protocol might need to describe
> +discovery methods or rely on configuration.  The working group may
> discuss and
> +document different deployment models.  The working group may publish
> protocol
> +mechanisms that support selected deployment models.
>

> This replaces existing text prohibiting work on discovery and would be in
> addition to the change I suggested earlier in response to Eliot's feedback.
>

> Does that work for people?
>

I think this needs some work, because it's not just a matter of prioritize,
but of this other work being optional.

   The working group will prioritize work on the core protocol elements as
   identified. In addition, if there is sufficient interest and chair
consensus, the
   WG may work on other use cases and deployment models, including those
   which involve discovery of O-HTTP proxies or servers..

-Ekr

> --
> Ohttp mailing list
> Ohttp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ohttp
>