Hello Eric, thanks for the heads up - couple of points inline:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 3:04 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just a heads-up to the DPRIVE WG and for the DoQ authors[1]: after some > discussions within IESG/IAB, I am afraid that UDP/853 won't be allocated to > DoQ. Nothing definitive yet of course but IAB/IESG have raised the following > concerns: > > > > Lack of real technical motivation (except for 'symmetry' or for operational > reasons). While this might be true - if encrypted DNS proves to be as successful as unencrypted DNS (and i have no reason to believe it won't) millions of people will have to remember, memorize, and immediately recognize a certain port as "Oh, encrypted DNS", like everybody does today for port 53. Therefore, i would strongly suggest to also consider that "non-technical" aspect. > Moving DoDTLS to historic will not help, as it will simply return udp/853 to > the pool to be re-used later. > > The *currently* possible demux between QUIC & DTLS is not something carved in > stone forever. Hence, a future problem can happen if DTLS v23 cannot be > demuxed from QUIC v19. This would put a heavy constraint on the evolution of > both QUIC & DTLS, i.e., ossifying both protocols. Not to mention that both > QUIC & DTLS want to expose as little as possible to observers, making demux > of future versions quite improbable... > If the protocol is declared historic (and there are zero implementations outside of labs), does the *potential* future demux problem really matter? If DoDTLS gets a second life, wouldn't it be an option to request a different port for DoDTLSv2 then? > > Personally, I do not think that it is critical to re-use udp/853 but happy to > work with the authors and the WG to attempt to re-use it. > I think it's not "critical" in the sense that DoQ won't work on a different port, but generations of network admins would look back to that thread and ask themselves "why the heck...". I really really like the symmetry that was established with port 53, and i would very much like that symmetry to be continued for 853, even if there's no hard technical reason. best, Alex _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
