On 09. 04. 20 7:49, Ralf Weber wrote: > Moin! > > On 8 Apr 2020, at 18:55, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> On Apr 8, 2020, at 9:41 AM, Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic >>> >>> The draft is available here: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic/ >>> >>> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption >>> by DPRIVE, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. > I support adoption of this draft and am willing to review and maybe > contribute text > >> This draft is better than earlier versions, but still is missing something >> that seems crucial: detailed comparison between the protocol described here, >> DoT, and DoH. The suggestion in the text that the comparison would be added >> after there are implementations seems like the comparison would be about >> speed, but comparisons about protocol complexity, security, and privacy seem >> incredibly important as well. > Ok let me try. DoT is based on TCP and thus the connection handling will have > to put more bits on the wire. DoH being based on HTTP that has an arbitrary > meta data layer in the protocol that is a privacy nightmare. > >> The WG might delay adoption until this significant part is added to the >> document. > I don’t think the WG should delay this, especially as recent approaches to > secure DNS transports (NS2) take different transports into account so having > one more doesn’t hurt.
I agree and also support adoption. Do not delay this. -- Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
