IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] Some additional signalling ideas

Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de> Sun, 31 March 2019 14:15 UTC

Return-Path: <dns@fl1ger.de>
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 D0948120185 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 07:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 wAlmO-aYJppF for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 07:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.guxx.net (smtp.guxx.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:a0:322c::25:42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 832571200B6 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 07:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by nyx.guxx.net (Postfix, from userid 107) id EB9F55F408CF; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 16:15:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.27.67.195] (tmo-123-159.customers.d1-online.com [80.187.123.159]) (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 387255F40066; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 16:15:49 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16E227)
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0ck-SNweieak5Fn7TOLLZTvsQNo6+w3nezxKuZPq0Z4QNA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 16:15:46 +0200
Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8EA0EDE7-99B7-4AD4-B3A4-48D3D592119D@fl1ger.de>
References: <CACsn0ck-SNweieak5Fn7TOLLZTvsQNo6+w3nezxKuZPq0Z4QNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/Er-lD-YIi8wpHAXecCUfhjxHzKg>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Some additional signalling ideas
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 14:15:54 -0000

Moin!

> On 31. Mar 2019, at 14:48, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> Please rip these ideas to shreds:
I assume with this sentence you mean that the following ideas are bad ideas. Is this correct? If so why not say so, as there are a lot of people in here including myself who are not native English speakers. 

> 1) An extra bit in a response for "you could have asked over TLS"
> 2) An extra field when looking up the nameserver for  "you can ask
> that server over TLS"
> 3) An extra field/bit/convention for "this nameserver supports tls"
> (like tls-ns vs ns)
Can you please explain your opinion on these rather then stating that they are bad (or good). 

So long
Ralf

Sent from my iPhone

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email