Subject: [Doh] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 13:18:13 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https-13: Yes

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.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

I'm balloting "yes", but have some minor comments:

§4: I'd like to see a bit more clarity on what it means for the URL to be
selected based on "configuration". Does this mean "local" configuration? In
particular, the client does _not_ select a DoH server based on something in the
HTML or JS served by a web server?

§5.1: Would it make sense to offer some more explicit guidance on when to
choose GET vs POST? I see comments that GET is more cache friendly but that
POST might be more efficient. Is there any reasonable guidance on how to apply
when making implementation decisions?

§6.2, first sentence: That's a slightly odd use of the RECOMMENDED keyword.
Does it mean the same thing as "SHOULD NOT" use earlier versions?

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 00:01:28 +0000

On Aug 15, 2018, at 1:18 PM, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> selected based on "configuration". Does this mean "local" configuration?

Yes, that. We'll make that clearer.

> In

Correct.

> when making implementation decisions?

Unfortunately, no. The WG worked long and hard on this one, but comparing apples and orangutans led to the current wording.

> Does it mean the same thing as "SHOULD NOT" use earlier versions?

   HTTP/2 [RFC7540] is the minimum RECOMMENDED version of HTTP for use
   with DoH.
vs.
   DoH SHOULD NOT be used with versions of HTTP before HTTP/2
   [RFC7540].
Quite frankly, I think our current wording is reads better.

--Paul Hoffman