On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Joshua Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:24:13AM -1000, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> I see two distinct use cases: >> >> 1) Web browsing >> 2) Everything else. >> >> The challenges for (1) are latency, latency and latency. >> >> Shaving 10ms off the response of a browser is very important to the >> Web browser team. Folk can argue that it should not be, but that is >> the situation. > > Perhaps this is a case where anyone wishing to make use of the > additional privacy/security features provided from using DNS over TLS > will need to accept the trade off that the addition comes at a > performance cost?
No, there is a proposal that meets the performance criteria. I see no reason to force users to choose between security and performance when the simplest, best proposal provides both. Do you? > Especially if you consider the case where your local (stub?) resolver > caches the responses I would imagine that after the first few minutes of > browsing, once the cache is reasonably populated, that the overall > performance impact of the changes will approach nil. That would be an incorrect assumption. Talk to the Chrome team. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
