Adam,
Thanks for summarizing the discussion and its outcomes. Looking at the revised charter, I noticed that it currently says "The use of HTTPS and its existing PKI provides integrity and confidentiality, and it also allows the transport to interoperate with common HTTPS infrastructure and policy." The choice not to specify a particular version means that there may be more than one transport. You may wish to rephrase this or elide it to reflect the decision taken on that point.On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks to everyone who commented on the proposed charter for DNS-over-HTTPS. I have noted four main categories of discussion:
- Whether to rule specific versions of HTTP in or out of scope of the charter. While the consensus here was rough, there were more proponents of leaving the version out than baking it in. I further observe that leaving version out of the charter does not preclude the WG from reaching consensus that requires or precludes certain versions from being used.
- Discovery of DNS-over-HTTPS servers. Again, consensus was rough, but I find slightly more people in favor of allowing discovery than those opposed to its inclusion. I will be adding language to the charter proposal that allows such work if those parties interested in specifying such mechanisms show up in the working group. If no such critical mass shows up, the WG will be allowed to close without performing such specification.
- Scope of work: whether DNS-over-HTTPS servers are accessed normal stub resolver libraries or via _javascript_. The proposed charter now contains text clarifying that the _javascript_ use case is not the primary motivation, but that the WG will not take steps to preclude it.
- Regarding the question of whether to perform the work at all (or whether to perform the work now): the analysis for starting a working group generally hinges on whether a viable group of willing and capable participants exists to complete such work, without regard to those who wish the work not to take place. While exceptions to this generality may certainly exist, I find no reason the proposed working group is special in this dimension.
The revised version of the proposed charter can now be found at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/
doc/charter-ietf-doh/
/a
_______________________________________________
Doh mailing list
Doh@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh