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

Hi all, Thanks for all the discussion on this draft. The amount of feedback was very useful for the chairs. We judged that there is not consensus to adopt this draft at this time, but we do have some suggestions for the authors: 1. Continue to follow the chartering of OHTTP to see what can

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

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:32 PM Wes Hardaker wrote: > > It seems silly to me to write up a document that is decoupled from the > parallel O-HTTP work when it would be better off depending on the > results of that work. > It seems like the authors of ODoH and O-HTTP could resolve this

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

"Martin Thomson" writes: TL;DR: don't adopt > I would question the value of publishing the experimental > approximately-but-not-quite-O-HTTP version then. Unless we fail > majestically in chartering and executing there, we're not talking > about significant delays. It seems silly to me to

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

On Thu, 2021-03-18 at 13:29 +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote: > On 17. 03. 21 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

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

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 6:04 PM Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Publishing this via the ISE and running experiments, then > bringing those results to the WG may be a good way to > proceed > This approach sounds good as well, but I don't think it will make a practical difference. It looks like this

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

Hiya, I had a pretty quick read of this. I haven't followed this discussion in detail though, so am not claiming to be that well informed. I'm not that convinced by it tbh - it seems that running DNS/Tor is quite doable for at least some clients so it may well be that it'd be as or more

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

I support adoption. I think that this work is useful, and I would like to see it happen in DPRIVE. David On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:45 AM Christopher Wood wrote: > As an author, I support adoption of this draft as experimental, with the > understanding that the WG will control ownership.

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

As an author, I support adoption of this draft as experimental, with the understanding that the WG will control ownership. (Indeed, we *want* input from the folks in this WG to improve the protocol!) Best, Chris On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, at 6:00 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: > All, > This starts

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

Hi Tommy, > On 18 Mar 2021, at 17:13, Tommy Pauly > wrote: > > Mainly, this is relevant for resolvers that directly receive client-generated > queries, are not directly on the local network (and thus already know a lot > about the user), and are in a position where a client can use a proxy

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] WG Call for Adoption: draft-pauly-dprive-oblivious-doh

> On 18 Mar 2021, at 16:21, Eric Orth > wrote: > > I disagree with your assumption that clients/users are only concerned about > particular resolvers. Eric, I didn’t make any assumptions about that at all. It was Tommy who said ODNS would benefit those who were concerned about leakage to

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

On 18/03/2021 16.42, Tommy Pauly wrote: > >> 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

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

> On 18 Mar 2021, at 15:42, Tommy Pauly > wrote: > > Instead, cases where clients are particularly concerned about revealing > client IP and identity to very large public resolvers benefit more from this. There’s a much easier and far quicker solution for that problem. Clients who have

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

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 for both smaller > vendors and operators, thus leading to more centralization. > This seems

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

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021, Neil Cook wrote: I oppose adoption. For precisely the same reasons that Tomas lays out below, I am also opposing adoption. The issue is not that we need another transport protocol. We need a better way to decouple the stub/client data from the resolver/auth data. How the

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

I oppose adoption. For precisely the same reasons that Tomas lays out below, Neil > On 18 Mar 2021, at 12:02, 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 for both

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

On 17. 03. 21 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

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

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. Additionally, the problem it attempts to solve is not DoH-specific, or even

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

On 17. 03. 21 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

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

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 6:16 PM Martin Thomson wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021, at 11:04, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > To clarify my position: i would favor a proposed standard based on > > O-HTTP. I just think it's unfortunate to have something that is > > approximately O-HTTP but not precisely as

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] WG Call for Adoption: draft-pauly-dprive-oblivious-doh

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021, at 11:04, Eric Rescorla wrote: > To clarify my position: i would favor a proposed standard based on > O-HTTP. I just think it's unfortunate to have something that is > approximately O-HTTP but not precisely as PS at the same time as we are > also standardizing O-HTTP

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

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 6:46 AM Eric Rescorla wrote: > I believe this document should be adopted with a target status of > Experimental > Fully agree. thanks, Rob ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org

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

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 4:48 PM Martin Thomson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021, at 00:00, Brian Haberman wrote: > > 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

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

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021, at 00:00, Brian Haberman wrote: > 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

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

I believe this document should be adopted with a target status of Experimental On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 6:00 AM Brian Haberman wrote: > All, > This starts a DPRIVE WG call for adoption for > draft-pauly-dprive-oblivious-doh >

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

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.