On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 7:15 AM Ralf Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > Moin! > > On 20 Mar 2020, at 14:57, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > > On Mar 20, 2020, at 12:42 AM, Ralf Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > ....
something else (mostly network latency and cache behaviour), where stuff > is up for discussion, but for the performance case I described, which > matters to people who have to buy and operate these servers, I don’t > see how we can get the same bang for the buck for DoT/DoH. > I think this is the key point: there are multiple constituencies here and they each have a different view of performance. As you say, server operators are very concerned with CPU on the server [0], however, what users are principally concerned with is end-to-end performance, which is generally not dominated by server CPU. This seems especially true for servers which are run by entities which already have high performance TLS (or QUIC) serving capacity. I think it's clear that the latter is the kind of performance that this draft is talking about. However, as I said initially, agreeing with Rob, I think it would probably be easier to drop this text. -Ekr [0] It's worth noting that CPU performance used to be a big concern for encrypted Web traffic, but that's become a much smaller concern due to a variety of technical improvements.
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
