On Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 12:49 Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, Kenji Baheux wrote: > > > I'm involved with Chrome's DoH efforts. > > > Our motivations in pursuing DoH in Chrome is to offer our users a better > user experience: > > > Hopefully, some performance wins. > > > Tentative plans: > > > We are considering a first milestone where Chrome would do an > automatic upgrade to DoH when a user’s existing resolver is capable of it. > > I'm confused how these two can both be done? You either prefer the local > ISP over Google DNS, or you prefer the faster of the two. >
We would not change the underlying DNS provider. The only thing that would change is how the DNS query is done: vanilla or DoH (if the existing DNS provider is capable of it). Discovery is an open question. Until there is a better discovery story, we could have a list of known-to-be-DoH-compatible DNS providers that we could check against and map accordingly. Obviously, this doesn't scale but it seems reasonable for the experimentation phase (gathering data, etc). > > There are some unanswered questions about how we will be doing that > discovery, and would welcome input from the community. Perhaps, a good > topic for IETF 104. > > that is interesting indeed. You doing some static name lookups to test > would just make those names be in cache and not a good probe. And > probing nonsense is something that you do too much of already and it > is causing too much root zone noise :P > (^ ^; > > PS: I won't be able to join IETF 104 to discuss this face to face > > I'm already envious :) > > Paul >
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
