On 17. 03. 21 14:00, Brian Haberman wrote: > All, > This starts a DPRIVE WG call for adoption for > draft-pauly-dprive-oblivious-doh > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pauly-dprive-oblivious-doh/). > Please reply to the mailing list with your views (positive or negative) > on the WG adopting the document and your supporting arguments. > This call will end on March 31, 2021 at 11:59pm UTC.
I also oppose adoption because of what Petr Špaček and Tomáš Křížek said. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý (He/Him) [email protected] > On 18. 3. 2021, at 12:18, Petr Špaček <[email protected]> wrote: > > I oppose adoption. > > In my opinion value of publishing DoH-specific version of > approximately-but-not-quite-Oblivious-HTTP is questionable and borders with > waste of WGs time and engineering resources (after the document is published). > > DoH RFC 8484 already says how to map DNS to HTTP, so I think we should reuse > generic Oblivious HTTP and build on top of that, _not_ invent the wheel again > just for DoH. > On 18. 3. 2021, at 13:02, Tomas Krizek <[email protected]> wrote: > > I oppose adoption. > > The draft introduces huge amount of additional complexity, both for > implementors and operators of DoH. This raises the bar for both smaller > vendors and operators, thus leading to more centralization. > > Additionally, the problem it attempts to solve is not DoH-specific, or > even DNS-specific, yet it only provides a solution for DoH.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
