On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 26/09/17 00:38, Adam Roach wrote: >>> The Working Group will analyze the security and privacy issues that could >>> arise from accessing DNS over HTTPS. In particular, the Working Group >>> will >>> ensure that access to DNS information from a JavaScript context will >>> not have >>> adverse impact on the host operating system's DNS cache. The manner in >>> which >>> such analysis is performed will be decided by the working group. >> > > I'd be just about ok with that. My problems with your rephrasing > are: > > - I'm not sure the WG can "ensure" a lack of adverse impact, so > why make it a requirement, if it's not possible? > > - Pollution of the OS's cache may not be the only bad thing that > can happen, so that needs to be an example. > > - I'm fine that a WG decide how to document stuff, but saying > they can decide the manner in which such analysis is performed > seems to me like you could drive a giant cart and horses- > galore through that loophole, and that phrasing seems to > nearly invite that, and I've seen WGs do just that kind of > thing. I'd like that you or some other AD could ask to be > pointed at the analysis results and for those to at minimum > need a WG-list thread, so saying "do the work, document it > however you like" seems like a better plan to me. How about just: The Working Group will analyze the security and privacy issues that could arise from accessing DNS over HTTPS. In particular, the Working Group will consider the interaction of DNS and HTTP caching. I don't think that we need the JS piece in there. There are special concerns there, but I think that we're all enough aware of those concerns that we can reach a conclusion of sorts in the working group.