On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:02 AM 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. > This seems like an odd argument. We shouldn't do something that's a manifest increase in privacy (even as experimental!) because it's work to implement? -Ekr > Additionally, the problem it attempts to solve is not DoH-specific, or > even DNS-specific, yet it only provides a solution for DoH. > > On 17/03/2021 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. > > > > Regards, > > Brian & Tim > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dns-privacy mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy > > > > -- > Tomas Krizek > PGP: 4A8B A48C 2AED 933B D495 C509 A1FB A5F7 EF8C 4869 > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy >
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
