At Wed, 20 Mar 2019 12:38:05 +0100, Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote:
> > Often as an industry we may discuss various solutions that are great for oneself but don’t scale when looking at the big picture. > > I think what we are seeing is the fundamental tension between privacy and control. You need to give up some privacy in order to make the control possible; you need to give up some control in order to afford privacy. > Some in this thread want certainty that they are able to exercise control, e.g. for devices in their network. > Some in this thread want certainty that they can obtain privacy, e.g. for for their device in any network. [...] Thank you for the nice, concise summary. I think it's well-balanced observation of where we are. (I'm so glad I can finally see a constructive post after seeing a common pattern of boring IETF discussion, where people with different opinions just keep stating their views without making any real progress:). > Seems to me that there's a middle ground within sight here. > > Standardise this privacy mechanism, and specify (with reasoning) that it should be implemented such that the existence of the channel (but not the content) can be identified as distinct from other traffic by third parties. Maybe specify use of a different port number, as was done with DoT. I see that those who want to exercise control can live with this (or at least using a different set of IP addresses for DoH servers than those for other ordinary web services). But I'm not so sure if that's acceptable for the other group. In that sense I'm curious whether some big possible DoH providers are now willing to accept this middle ground. If my memory is correct the longer term plan at Google (and maybe also Clouldflare?) is to provide DoH service on the same IP addresses as those for other ordinary and popular web services (and on port 443, of course), so that an intermediate operator cannot easily block access to their DoH services. > Those who choose to ignore that direction and create a covert channel using port 443 instead will do so. Nothing much we can do to stop that today (I guarantee it is already happening). The future is not really different. True. But I think giant providers tend to respect a community consensus. Niche or really malicious players may/will still ignore it, but it would be very difficult for them to collocate their DoH services with other important web services that can hardly be blocked, so it shouldn't be a big problem for "those who want certainty of control". So if we can really agree on the above "middle ground" and publish a BCP or something that describes the consensus, I guess we can now really work on technical issues. But I'm not sure if we can reach that consensus. -- JINMEI, Tatuya
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
