Subject: [Doh] Eric Rescorla's Block on charter-ietf-doh-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2017 10:45:54 -0700

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-doh-00-00: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-doh/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This charter seems oddly agnostic on whether or not we are defining
use over HTTP or over HTTPS. In 2017, I think its imperative that this
only be chartered for secure transports (which is, after all, implicit
in the value proposition).  I agree with Martin Thomson that "HTTPS"
is the right way to convey this point.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I agree with MT's point that it would be best if this binding
were agnostic about HTTP/2 over TLS versus HTTPS over QUIC (or
whatever we call it) and to the extent possible, agnostic about HTTP/2
versus HTTP/1.1 (i.e., the binding should be indifferent for the
functionality that don't depend on explicit HTTP/2 features like
push). However, I think we could send the charter out for review
w/o deciding that.

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:59:00 -0500

The charter text had used "HTTP" only where it was an adjective (e.g., 
"HTTP semantics"), and "HTTPS" everywhere else.  Although it sounds a 
bit odd to my ear, the latest revision refers to "HTTPS infrastructure," 
"HTTPS clients," "HTTPS semantics," and "HTTPS protocol".

/a