On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 1:29 PM Bill Woodcock <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mar 31, 2021, at 9:55 PM, Rob Sayre <[email protected]> wrote: > > I still don't understand the resistance here. Some data on what the > impact would be still seems like the most helpful thing to move the > conversation forward. > > We have that: > > https://vaibhavbajpai.com/documents/papers/proceedings/dot-pam-2021.pdf
That paper is about home measurements, and says: "Previous work [8,17,26] has studied the support and response times of DoT (and DoH). However, the studies performed response time measurements from proxy networks and data centers, which means that results might not appropriately reflect the latency of regular home users..." and only measures DoT, rather than the more popular DoH. > Could you state the problem that’s being solved? > Sure, it's in the first sentence of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dprive-opportunistic-adotq-00: "A recursive resolver using traditional DNS over port 53 may wish instead to use encrypted communication with authoritative servers in order to limit passive snooping of its DNS traffic." thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
