On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:48:32AM -1000, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Joshua Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:24:13AM -1000, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >> I see two distinct use cases: > >> > >> 1) Web browsing > >> 2) Everything else. > >> > >> The challenges for (1) are latency, latency and latency. > >> > >> Shaving 10ms off the response of a browser is very important to the > >> Web browser team. Folk can argue that it should not be, but that is > >> the situation. > > > > Perhaps this is a case where anyone wishing to make use of the > > additional privacy/security features provided from using DNS over TLS > > will need to accept the trade off that the addition comes at a > > performance cost? > > No, there is a proposal that meets the performance criteria. > > I see no reason to force users to choose between security and > performance when the simplest, best proposal provides both. Do you?
Agreed. > > > Especially if you consider the case where your local (stub?) resolver > > caches the responses I would imagine that after the first few minutes of > > browsing, once the cache is reasonably populated, that the overall > > performance impact of the changes will approach nil. > > That would be an incorrect assumption. Talk to the Chrome team. This is definitely an area I'll have to do more research on. > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy -- Joshua Smith Lead Systems Administrator WVNET Montani Semper Liberi _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
