Re: [Add] Three degrees of (administrative) separation
"Ralf Weber" <dns@fl1ger.de> Wed, 29 May 2019 05:53 UTC
Return-Path: <dns@fl1ger.de>
X-Original-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4F31200F9 for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2019 22:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s4U2lYXXCZmT for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2019 22:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.guxx.net (nyx.guxx.net [85.10.208.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE2012008B for <add@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2019 22:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix, from userid 107) id 98B015F40A34; Wed, 29 May 2019 07:53:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [172.19.152.102] (p4FC21BEB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.194.27.235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF5965F4027C; Wed, 29 May 2019 07:53:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>, add@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 07:53:21 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.5r5635)
Message-ID: <E8D02D1A-15EE-4FDB-BB6D-72E66A5B07F0@fl1ger.de>
In-Reply-To: <f5f7264e-e89a-93a9-ee1b-29e4b64baced@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <CAH1iCiqpmkEf3DR27kwWUzBCpAzwWVyHGFAozyN1xxRPYHrm7w@mail.gmail.com> <f5f7264e-e89a-93a9-ee1b-29e4b64baced@cs.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/M0QXQY9ywP_O_l5m1RkJ1xdzJ2Q>
Subject: Re: [Add] Three degrees of (administrative) separation
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: Wed, 29 May 2019 05:53:25 -0000
Moin! On 28 May 2019, at 21:46, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Just on one point. > > On 28/05/2019 19:57, Brian Dickson wrote: >> Since DoT offers all of the same privacy protections as DoH, > > That is not correct as described in the DoH RFC itself. [1] > The differences are subtle but real and not irrelevant for > these discussions. You should not have quoted Brian out of context. For the enterprise use case where you don’t want users to leak DNS data DoT has the same privacy properties as DoH. The section you refer to is the reason we are having this discussion here, trying to somehow close the pandoras box opened there for use cases like enterprises or network based parental controls. So long -Ralf —-- Ralf Weber
- [Add] Three degrees of (administrative) separation Brian Dickson
- Re: [Add] Three degrees of (administrative) separ… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Add] Three degrees of (administrative) separ… Ralf Weber