[Add] DRDP: response to feed backs provided during the meeting

Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 26 March 2020 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7243A0DC3 for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70QtVFmtnjni for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa31.google.com (mail-vk1-xa31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B57B53A0D70 for <add@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa31.google.com with SMTP id v129so1867302vkf.10 for <add@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=r3yg6KhY/mbCd/xC4lS5uGLlRl9d1ODP05QLPssp7DY=; b=YsVr1e2p+Wxo8/RKc5cAIL4w2E5IejwW4iF9HJGjbRtodI9D1KmI3O4dhmqcxc8Sjk 1fVA6jO7ucQtyXVmKWAHwetf2rsRJfnw7JomhQaYIZ9Ia2DUKJW9ycn7DXEWJ59XWTr8 onoAxQCUQAsUYzULcix+vBpS5dY+P28sxlD0bXUkwutEUr3l7CaKGRYzSi4aktH68Qrs GAygn+BQ4vWZ/cfh7XQkK/lE6pbkn12JIK5zrh1OK4PoZ/v1QW/k2K5rjqZ6nY3fY+/P 2eN0NRAPn4l7RSr5a0Bokrebo0a6HxH20/nV0Jpv1gkBFQMNqHPh8sBn1m6o5rHkNqwn KVrQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=r3yg6KhY/mbCd/xC4lS5uGLlRl9d1ODP05QLPssp7DY=; b=ZjOIJzbrlTCgSPEu6SCI5uuE2ZPAJL/rJT0rhJqrGpMXDHJVFu2BnjRLgX5tjrY8Nt iktFlERCVTIMWstYGL8P2awS1A463FUvNOmSgy3ajf1PVc0wb+1kKdKLJFxueyE8NEx5 kNRA3Pkh12P+35XgE5vCrJSF6doVb7x+7pPx9784McNzly0bfa+syMazqJ5UeDMhVqF8 yJcZRuuhFP5T2DrnVp0aIhC/FvFHGkcrDZmeZ1JvaEJwQoSzOc1zZZtGUJVyaZTua6MP 9v5D6P/CpAW3bKE8SPKp9I6ijgdaHKhtjtpjvaMot8Mkk5l+7+65SOCIk7k8P2WMccg0 2swA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2SxMOaPe6eovPiGhOoLCj5cy/nLw2oEMsYgwvizrpNOxYfh/97 YEexIPz1iJwWjCq4Ksea0QqoJe52br2ceVA18Xa7d+Y5
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsyVSkJvqW2uLH9PQk4V+8HLZkPPbZA18EBMz3zHI2A+S35kVWlb9+rzzt2bBZkOsBV3FMmt23RwgSDydPdilw=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:a2d0:: with SMTP id l199mr8880082vke.77.1585265171227; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 19:26:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CADZyTkmQUqUgZKQ8a_1kxQEjZWWXwZWD8jn1SeSM7CwvnCF1vw@mail.gmail.com>
To: ADD Mailing list <add@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000067e76305a1ca4f79"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/4aUYir095wIcw_5Tclk8uxMH3to>
Subject: [Add] DRDP: response to feed backs provided during the meeting
X-BeenThere: add@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <add.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/>
List-Post: <mailto:add@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 23:26:29 -0000


Thank you for the feed backs provided during the meeting. Here
is a response to three concerns raised during the meeting. Feel
free to let me know your thoughts.

1. One comment was that having a unique centralize repository of
resolving domains for public resolvers was a terrible idea. I
agree with this as it implies a complex governance. I will update
the draft and let it as "a" repositories for resolving domains
instead. I however believe that repositories of resolving domain
share a common format so one is able to switch easily and move
from one repo to the other.

Note that resolving domains associated to local resolvers may also
happen to be found in such repos. Currently I am not convinced
that we should envision a large number of local resolving
domains, but I am happy to hear otherwise.

2. Another comment concerned the number of resolving domains. I
think I recall that the current list of resolvers used by the
Google Public DNS is greater than 11.000. I do not know if that
list is available but I am wondering whether these entries are IP
addresses or domain names. I suspect that IP addresses are used
and that some ISPs are proposing multiple IP addresses. If that
is correct, handling resolving domains instead of IP addresses
might help reduce the length. Of course this assume sthe
discovery protocol will help discovery the IP addresses. In
addition, I am also wondering how much these entries are "public"
resolvers that are globally available. I suspect that, thought
global IP addresses may be used, their access might be limited to
DNS client that belong to a specific network. Again this is only
a suspicion and I am happy to learn more about.

Thought I am not sure I am using relevant links, the link below
mention a 50ish of domains.

The link below provides much more public resolvers 11.000 public
resolving, but I suspect that most of them are open resolver. Of
course these are public, but maybe not what we expect when we
mention public resolver - which is probably why a centralized
repository is a terrible idea.  https://public-dns.info/

Overall, I have the impression that we have 11000 entries because
we are missing a discovery protocol and that a the list for
global resolver (expressed as domain) is expected to remain much

3. Regarding the format, to be used to host a list of resolving
domain, the use of DNS messages to host the list seems to me wise
as DNS is the protocol that for sure DNS client will understand.
In addition, I believe that tcp will be able to handle large list
of domains. One drawback thought seems that we may not be able to
compress this list with gzip for example. Using a URI that
redirects to an HTTPS or FTP requires the DNS client to have
these protocols which is not given nor necessary. I am happy to
hear your thoughts on this.


Daniel Migault