> On Mar 18, 2021, at 8:41 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 17, 2021, at 7:37 PM, Tommy Pauly <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> As an author, I support adoption as experimental. To Paul’s email, I also am >> quite happy to have change control governed by the WG. > > Great, but: > >> To the OHTTP discussion, I’m fine with having the direction be to use OHTTP >> for ODoH, but I personally believe that even in the best case, the timelines >> and deployment considerations make it more practical to have an experimental >> ODoH ship prior to a version that uses OHTTP. > > This makes no sense. If you have a non-standard experimental spec that you > are already implementing, but a forthcoming different spec whose base is > being developed in another WG, you asking people to work on the > will-be-obsoleted protocol wastes many people's time.
I am personally not sure that deployments that want to support ODoH would necessarily want to use a generic OHTTP solution, for two reasons: - A proxy for ODoH can know that it is proxying a message of a very specific media type that is specific to DNS. An OHTTP proxy may have no way to know what the content is, and can become a completely open proxy. - A DoH server that wants to support ODoH can add support for the HPKE transformation to the bodies of the messages it transmits, without having to implement a new HTTP stack that has a separate way of formatting all the HTTP messages. This is what I was referring to as the deployment considerations, and I think that they make the simple ODoH approach not a waste of time or something that would be obsoleted anytime soon—some day, yes, if OHTTP becomes ubiquitous and deployment models are worked out, but that will take time even if OHTTP formatting is defined soon. Tommy > > If you want to just document what you are doing now, take your draft to the > Independent Submission Editor as informational. The ISE will ask if you got > external reviews, and it is quite reasonable for you to ask for those reviews. > > Now that I understand the authors' intentions better, I withdraw my support > for adoption. > > --Paul Hoffman_______________________________________________ > 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
