[dns-privacy] Direction of draft-mayrhofer-edns0-padding

[Alexander Mayrhofer <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I'm working through my notes from the DPRIVE session regarding the EDNS0 Padding option. My takeaway was as follows:

- Generally, this seems to be a reasonable idea
- Besides the use to evade size-based message correlation, this could also be useful in other cases, eg. "proof of work" for clients when requesting larger packets (Peter K.)
- However, the draft should only specify the option itself, and not indulge into the various usage scenarios
- The EDNS0 assignment policy is Speficiation Required / Expert Review, hence does not necessarily require an RFC
- The preferred way forward is individual draft, AD-sponsored.
- Discussion can continue on the DPRIVE list

Regarding the actual contents of the draft, my takeaway was:

- Is "1" the right minimum length for the option? Why not "0"?
- Padding must obviously not exceed the announced EDNS0 packet size - some words about that
- No consideration is required whether or not a server may pad, because clients are required to ignore unknown options anyways.
- The Security considerations section needs more work.

Is that in line with the perception of the WG members? Anything I forgot to mention / consider?

Thanks,
Alex