Subject: [dns-privacy] DoQ Use Case Review

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 08:18:26 -0400

Hi all,
      The chairs are soliciting feedback on the use cases described in
the DoQ draft:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/

We would like to hear comments/questions on the applicability of DoQ to
the three use cases described in the draft:

   1. Stub to recursive resolver
   2. Recursive resolver to authoritative servers
   3. Zone transfers

Do you agree/disagree that the use cases should be considered for DoQ?

Do you agree/disagree that DoQ provides sufficient functionality for the
use cases?

The chairs would like to get this feedback within the next two weeks.
Please provide any feedback on the use cases by the end of Aug. 30th AOE.

Regards,
Brian & Tim

---

From: Vladimír Čunát <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:54:07 +0200

Hello.

> Do you agree/disagree that the use cases should be considered for DoQ?

I'm certainly glad that 2 got included.  I probably even consider it 
more important than 1, as we have DoT for 1 already and 2 seems more 
sensitive to handshake latency than 1.
(Nit: I consider 1 to include any case towards non-authoritative. There 
are various proxies, forwarding between resolvers, etc.)

Adding 3 caused an incompatibility with previous draft's 
implementations; hopefully that won't cause noticeable trouble (I have 
almost no worries after Sara's presentation).  If I disregard that, I 
certainly like including 3 for consistency with DoT+XoT, as the two 
bytes are a cheap price.

> Do you agree/disagree that DoQ provides sufficient functionality for the

I can't see anything missing, and I find it highly unlikely that 
something serious is missing.
(More implementations would improve confidence, but I'm afraid I can't 
promise any substantial DoQ from cz.nic within a few months, even though 
it has fans here.)

--Vladimir | knot-resolver.cz

---

From: Peter van Dijk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 20:27:25 +0200

> Do you agree/disagree that the use cases should be considered for DoQ?

agree

> Do you agree/disagree that DoQ provides sufficient functionality for the

agree

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/

---

From: Eric Orth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:29:56 -0400

I don't think (1) should get much consideration unless a specific stub
implementation is found willing and interested in implementing it.  For
most of the clients in this space, I would anticipate that they're either
happy with DoH or unwilling to add much more complication beyond DoT.

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 8:18 AM Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> dns-privacy mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
>

---

From: Sara Dickinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:00:14 +0100

> On 23 Aug 2021, at 20:29, Eric Orth <ericorth=[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I don't think (1) should get much consideration unless a specific stub implementation is found willing and interested in implementing it.  For most of the clients in this space, I would anticipate that they're either happy with DoH or unwilling to add much more complication beyond DoT.

Hi Eric,

To clarify the background here, the implementation section of the draft details that AdGuard implemented and deployed DoQ (based on the version -02 specification) for (1) in December 2020, open sourcing all the implementations they used:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-03#page-14

Their blog on this is here: https://adguard.com/en/blog/dns-over-quic.html and they have presented at various conferences, citing good performance of DoQ in mobile environments. 

Best regards

Sara.

---

From: Eric Orth <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:24:13 -0400

Excellent.  I had missed that AdGuard had built DoQ client support into
their apps.  In that case, call me "agree" for (1).

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 5:00 AM Sara Dickinson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> To clarify the background here, the implementation section of the draft
> details that AdGuard implemented and deployed DoQ (based on the version -02
> specification) for (1) in December 2020, open sourcing all the
> implementations they used:
> Their blog on this is here: https://adguard.com/en/blog/dns-over-quic.html
> and they have presented at various conferences, citing good performance of
> DoQ in mobile environments.
>
> Best regards
>
> Sara.
>