[dns-privacy] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-12

Reviewer: Tommy Pauly Review result: Ready with Nits I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like

Re: [dns-privacy] ODoH RFC SetupBaseS clarification

Hi Ravi, Seems like this was stuck in your outbox and sent a duplicate email to the one from August 10? Tommy > On Aug 10, 2022, at 1:40 AM, Ravi sankar MANTHA > wrote: > > Hi, > > In Section 6.2 of RFC 9230, its mentioned that SetupBaseS takes only 2 > parameters (pkR, "odoh query") >

Re: [dns-privacy] WG Call for Adoption: draft-pauly-dprive-oblivious-doh

> On Mar 18, 2021, at 9:40 AM, Eric Orth > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 12:33 PM Jim Reid > wrote: > > > > On 18 Mar 2021, at 16:21, Eric Orth > > wrote: > > > > I disagree with your assumption that clients/users

Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WG Call for Adoption: draft-pauly-dprive-oblivious-doh

> On Mar 18, 2021, at 8:41 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > On Mar 17, 2021, at 7:37 PM, Tommy Pauly > 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. >

Re: [dns-privacy] WG Call for Adoption: draft-pauly-dprive-oblivious-doh

> On Mar 18, 2021, at 8:32 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:02 AM Tomas Krizek > wrote: > I oppose adoption. > > The draft introduces huge amount of additional complexity, both for > implementors and operators of DoH. This raises the bar

Re: [dns-privacy] WG Call for Adoption: draft-pauly-dprive-oblivious-doh

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. 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

Re: [dns-privacy] DNS and QUIC,HTTP/3 Long term vision...

in RFC8890. > > Andrew > > From: Eric Orth > Sent: 08 October 2020 17:00 > To: Vinny Parla (vparla) > Cc: Andrew Campling ; Tommy Pauly > ; James ; > dns-privacy@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] DNS and QUIC,HTTP/3 Long term vision... > > For C

Re: [dns-privacy] DNS and QUIC,HTTP/3 Long term vision...

rla) > wrote: > > Hi, > > What I am driving at in my original question is do we envision mixing Content > and DNS together in a multiplexed session or will DNS continue to be an > entirely independent channel (whether over HTTP/2 /3 Do53 DoQ DoH). > > -Vinny > > F

Re: [dns-privacy] Adaptive DNS Privacy and Oblivious DoH

> On Nov 2, 2019, at 4:57 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 03:40:51PM -0700, > Tommy Pauly wrote > a message of 393 lines which said: > >> We've posted new versions of our drafts on discovering designated DoH >> servers, and O

Re: [dns-privacy] Adaptive DNS Privacy and Oblivious DoH

one server entity to be aware of both the client IP address and the content of DNS queries and answers. > On Oct 4, 2019, at 10:34 AM, Tommy Pauly > wrote: > > Hello DNS Privacy, > > We’ve published a set of new drafts that define what we’re calling “Adaptive > DNS Privacy

[dns-privacy] Adaptive DNS Privacy and Oblivious DoH

Hello DNS Privacy, We’ve published a set of new drafts that define what we’re calling “Adaptive DNS Privacy”. This is an approach to using technologies like DoH to improve privacy of name resolution without breaking the functionality provided by local network resolvers. It also does not