[dns-privacy] DNS over DTLS

Tariq Saraj <tariqsaraj@gmail.com> Thu, 01 December 2016 07:50 UTC

Return-Path: <tariqsaraj@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A3C91295C5 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 23:50:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pa3SymxUWOfn for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 23:50:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x232.google.com (mail-io0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::232]) (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 E918A1295F2 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 23:50:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x232.google.com with SMTP id j65so406090416iof.0 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 23:50:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=6lIBN6EU8uuim0n/B3YiS6eWHY+Ix0GneiZIsJYDd5w=; b=PUxL1NTYL1AYeuAvdTrNab3DyQOMV8aiQRb6+nIFaT1b+vhYCmGt2wv/vAWJ1Rc0Pm daBre22lXLlkh8/O6cMqCLNYXf0iacKRIkSAeHFl0qTUCqpyY4UZN7ocAvrsM1Yg50nF pgeduKFOy4BZdfK1GZIetGkf/FDQK9eRXSctHq+H5V4s/+YMZMgVRz8yD8D9MAeoHmQ5 G/rJKntAJzX4gwM3A091lZ91BGLeKUmUXxXOPfGQbMR1KvoZDZNy2spSepr2kEm60lxd vMV7tt1lnI7yxoMLP/XhJdjuMkSzTZiYAOz7M88hTuYaJsMpSSZKazdZeT+pwGGH0ygb rrIQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=6lIBN6EU8uuim0n/B3YiS6eWHY+Ix0GneiZIsJYDd5w=; b=lEU8yaCvz1vAsA6sIVRZDjJOZgmitdeSwgJR/FYNE0aDTFaLfMvjsv/sxOXdc1qmhU Cn2Y6uAbkf6S6s/VnObkOmXfL0bkIg7VZTEw9vELxcOClsO7WSZcYmRvlXE2ctPkXZ9V st9VrMYL/cHPwqP7f9w1dK8HpFgFMmfsXBUWAHkMgoV9o8J1czrcwFhIk1JLDksCuw/Q Q4wnAe7itcYZuuxGKJ1C3ivK1venUQjcQCxj/dZRKh/itFDDDO7FI4A8sl1k1ubfO6kW T3ibRqF+zMyxoycMQ8osD72VSZfkCBQjn7WxMVaNZsNtZSSKXUWQZd07OP9BI3jAHBym Dqsw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC021htc/TQCdUfGqmlWRoE/CW/VIsHdUoUsono88ZEDjRwRtUC9nIDRko/TQHizY+q64LZit6R3k+/XhBQ==
X-Received: by 10.107.18.230 with SMTP id 99mr30083948ios.41.1480578617119; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 23:50:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.36.200.137 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 23:50:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Tariq Saraj <tariqsaraj@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 12:50:16 +0500
Message-ID: <CAAdbxrrgKRvUUgWQUFvxQiwua_DsochdZm83pi_Zgx_wo4-GPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: dns-privacy@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113fd398891bd905429412b9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/-naUgFOAhLe73Zg9MuhOxwIq5IA>
Subject: [dns-privacy] DNS over DTLS
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dns-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dns-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:dns-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 07:50:19 -0000

Hi all,
My question is that, at one side "Specification for DNS over Transport
Layer Security (TLS) i.e. RFC7858" is a proposed standard now.
Whereas, on the other side in the "draft-ietf-dprive-dnsodtls-13",
The motivations for proposing DNS-over-DTLS are that

   o  TCP suffers from network head-of-line blocking, where the loss of
      a packet causes all other TCP segments to not be delivered to the
      application until the lost packet is re-transmitted.  DNS-over-
      DTLS, because it uses UDP, does not suffer from network head-of-
      line blocking.
In the very next point of this draft it is also mentioned that " However,
with TCP Fast Open [RFC7413], the implementation can achieve the same RTT
efficiency as DTLS."
In addition to that, in the recent IETF97 meeting regarding the DNS privacy
they have presented a technique of OOOP for TCP.
So, why the community still need DTLS for DNS?

-- 
Regards
Tariq Saraj
Riphah Institute of Systems Engineering, Islamabad