Hi Andrew,

 

I agree with your view and am not in favor of aggregating Content and DNS 
together, although I can see arguments for doing this.

I am just wondering if Browser implementors have plans to do this in the future 
as I need to deal with both OS DNS and Browser (app) DNS scenarios.

 

>From Tommy’s response I am hopeful the OS implementors won’t do this in the 
>future and will keep DNS an independent mechanism.

 

-Vinny

 

From: Andrew Campling <[email protected]> 
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 4:33 AM
To: Vinny Parla (vparla) <[email protected]>; Tommy Pauly 
<[email protected]>; James <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [dns-privacy] DNS and QUIC,HTTP/3 Long term vision...

 

Important though browsers are for some, DNS is an Internet protocol and needs 
to work for a wide range of devices and clients.  Mandating its absorption into 
a multiplexed stream via HTTP/3 seems unnecessary, irrespective of the 
potential performance gains and other possible benefits for web clients.   

 

Andrew 

 

From: Vinny Parla (vparla) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > 
Sent: 07 October 2020 15:40
To: Tommy Pauly <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> >; James <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> >
Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] DNS and QUIC,HTTP/3 Long term vision...

 

Hi,

 

What I am driving at in my original question is do we envision mixing Content 
and DNS together in a multiplexed session or will DNS continue to be an 
entirely independent channel (whether over HTTP/2 /3 Do53 DoQ DoH).

 

-Vinny

 

From: Tommy Pauly <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > 
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 9:23 AM
To: James <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Cc: Vinny Parla (vparla) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; 
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] DNS and QUIC,HTTP/3 Long term vision...

 

Can you cite this claim about DNS over HTTP/3? The per-query cost once an 
HTTP/3 connection is established should be minimal. If you’re taking into 
account all setup overhead for an HTTPS connection as a “per query” cost, 
that’s not representative of how DoH is reasonably used (and would be a issue 
with existing DoH).

 

Thanks,

Tommy

 

On Oct 6, 2020, at 2:03 PM, James <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

 

My most recent observations of discussions around DNS over QUIC and HTTP/3 was 
that some folks had attempted DNS over HTTP/3, however the overheads (~14KiB 
for a query at worst-case) made it impractical and infeasible. With regards to 
DNS over QUIC, the current dprive working group adopted draft [1] is focusing 
on stub to recursive, but not necessarily as a multiplex with an existing QUIC 
connection.

 

- J

 

1:  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-00> 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-00

 

On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 17:31, Vinny Parla (vparla) <vparla= 
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote:

Hi,

 

It was suggested that I ask this question on the 3 lists:

 

Now that QUIC & HTTP/3 is imminent…

 

I would like to know what the opinion is of the community on the long term view 
of DNS.  

Would DNS remain an independent channel or would it be subsumed in a 
multiplexed stream via HTTP/3 in some future version?

 

For example, would a browser perform DNS queries over a QUIC multiplexed 
session?

 (e.g. similar to how today an http proxy can perform DNS queries on behalf of 
the client using that proxy) 

 

Would love to hear from implementors what their long term view is of this in 
particular.

 

Thanks,

 

-Vinny

 

_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

Reply via email to