4 ms·

> Or -- much better -- use DoT instead of DoH so port 443 isn't getting misused for DNS. DNS over TLS has other issues. There's a nice comparison there https:/

by dngray 7y ago

> Or -- much better -- use DoT instead of DoH so port 443 isn't getting misused for DNS. DNS over TLS has other issues. There's a nice comparison there https://dnscrypt.info/faq/ https://dnscrypt.info/faq/ I have been using local resolver on 53, that forwards all requests from my LAN into DNSCrypt (and sends that over a VPN tunnel). That way I maintain privacy, and decentralization as well as being able to simply use the DNS resolver built into my OS. I have to wonder though with HTTP/3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP/3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP/3 being QUIC based, will we see DNS over QUIC? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC Seems like Firefox doesn't even support QUIC at the moment. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1158011 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1158011

tialaramex 7y ago
The IETF QUIC isn't finished. Periodically the Working Group thinks it has stopped fiddling with the low-level bit layout and is ready to focus on polish, then somebody finds a show stopper that means revisiting the low-level bits. Maybe 2020? They missed all their advisory target dates (July 2019) for actually writing documents, and that isn't the end by any means for a protocol like this. So Firefox could at most support either Google QUIC (internal prototype, now obsolete, who cares?) or a random draft that may end up not resembling the final product. If they haven't decided to do either it doesn't seem like a big deal.
- dngray 7y ago
  > The IETF QUIC isn't finished. Periodically the Working Group thinks it has stopped fiddling with the low-level bit layout and is ready to focus on polish, then somebody finds a show stopper that means revisiting the low-level bits. Maybe 2020? Ah yes you're right. Also Mozilla (M. Thomson, Ed) is on the author list there so I expect they will support it when it is finalized. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-transport/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-transport/ Hopefully then they also support DNS over QUIC, I expect they probably will once QUIC is finalized. I think DoH is just a stop-gap measure to be honest. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huitema-quic-dnsoquic/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huitema-quic-dnsoquic...

by dngray 7y ago

tialaramex 7y ago

The IETF QUIC isn't finished. Periodically the Working Group thinks it has stopped fiddling with the low-level bit layout and is ready to focus on polish, then somebody finds a show stopper that means revisiting the low-level bits. Maybe 2020? They missed all their advisory target dates (July 2019) for actually writing documents, and that isn't the end by any means for a protocol like this. So Firefox could at most support either Google QUIC (internal prototype, now obsolete, who cares?) or a random draft that may end up not resembling the final product. If they haven't decided to do either it doesn't seem like a big deal.

dngray 7y ago
> The IETF QUIC isn't finished. Periodically the Working Group thinks it has stopped fiddling with the low-level bit layout and is ready to focus on polish, then somebody finds a show stopper that means revisiting the low-level bits. Maybe 2020? Ah yes you're right. Also Mozilla (M. Thomson, Ed) is on the author list there so I expect they will support it when it is finalized. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-transport/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-transport/ Hopefully then they also support DNS over QUIC, I expect they probably will once QUIC is finalized. I think DoH is just a stop-gap measure to be honest. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huitema-quic-dnsoquic/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huitema-quic-dnsoquic...