On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:10 AM Kevin Borgolte <ke...@iseclab.org> wrote:
> > > But, I think you should add the list and the reason for the range choice > to the paper. For example, I can't tell what range you actually used from > your description (although that might just be due to a hurried reply). > > Section 3.2.4 talks about the selection of websites: > > We collect HARs (and resulting DNS lookups) for the top 1,000 websites on > the Tranco top-list to understand browser performance for the average user > visiting popular sites. Furthermore, we measure the bottom 1,000 of the top > 100,000 websites (ranked 99,000 to 100,000) to understand browser > performance for websites that are less popular. > I see, that makes sense. I'm still having trouble interpreting the measurements, given that pageload can be blocked by additional DNS queries and HTTP requests. For example, could an analytics provider interfere with performance evaluation here, if it were present in a lot of pages? Or, what if the results indicate a performance problem in one common hosting vendor (anything from AWS to Wordpress)? As I said, the paper is a welcome contribution, but I find the results surprising and want to look more. I would have expected DoH and DoT to be about the same in practice, but your paper does not show this. > We didn't include the full list in the paper itself for space reasons and > because extracting the list from the paper would be cumbersome. It will be > part of our future open source release though. > Understood--I meant that I looked for a separate download and didn't see one (thank you for sending it along). thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
