IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] Root Server Operators Statement on DNS Encryption

Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> Wed, 31 March 2021 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <woody@pch.net>
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 A2F503A39DE for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 azQhkdNsnzmU for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pch.net (keriomail.pch.net [206.220.231.84]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E5013A1184 for <dprive@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Footer: cGNoLm5ldA==
Received: from [10.19.48.7] ([69.166.14.2]) by mail.pch.net (Kerio Connect 9.2.7 patch 3) with ESMTPS (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)); Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:38:56 -0700
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Message-Id: <0CEC3CB6-6D7C-4950-A97B-EA24F221531C@pch.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1FD4E68E-2BFD-4819-AE19-570BBF5C8D61"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 00:38:48 +0200
In-Reply-To: <LO2P265MB0399D0CEECA22D0652191F6FC27C9@LO2P265MB0399.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, "dprive@ietf.org" <dprive@ietf.org>
To: Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting>
References: <c925da9089fa4b1e991ec74fc9c11e7f@verisign.com> <CAChr6Sxwao=FAcoeHMuOf0L=JCZ+wvhsr9BNZW_dbt+1=HWQwg@mail.gmail.com> <20210331091238.GA10597@nic.fr> <CAChr6SxPNVAZMYfZqF+K6Xf8FPGa9ZgHkL-uUvtKMEiJSPmp8Q@mail.gmail.com> <2607D274-936F-4A31-9E4D-EEBCF45BE838@pch.net> <CAChr6Szg+EbFqSpFPco8Gyb9pzNNnrSoQJcXTDVeg40_EXiPDg@mail.gmail.com> <4B1CCB51-C777-4434-B28E-76C22C12E4DA@pch.net> <CAChr6Sym=tm-vj-3FB-GbOG6U=U4CFsRE6yyWJk14waZQLbRiQ@mail.gmail.com> <ABD711DE-80CE-4B15-9153-82DA25E4F000@pch.net> <CAChr6Swfnc_s_-3TS6NuCzuqWduA-E6270x4uSLNGnTF+sLnmQ@mail.gmail.com> <981FF900-A7ED-46DF-9DDB-056E76822017@pch.net> <13460b9e-a7d4-1bad-b48c-64941fb4739f@cs.tcd.ie> <LO2P265MB039907E624A01148C9032A9AC27C9@LO2P265MB0399.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <C62F7B3B-322D-44B2-8BFD-77FBF4797345@pch.net> <LO2P265MB0399D0CEECA22D0652191F6FC27C9@LO2P265MB0399.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/QbF1sqXnu3d2VrZIca1Xrd6tUhE>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Root Server Operators Statement on DNS Encryption
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: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 22:39:07 -0000


> On Apr 1, 2021, at 12:32 AM, Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting> wrote:
>> On 31 March, 2021, at 23:223, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
>> To my observation, the position of TLD operators is split.  Some of those who directly face the costs of implementation would like to defer and minimize those costs, and are asking people to be very clear what benefit those increased costs would bring, and whether other less costly methods have already been thoroughly explored.  Those who don’t directly face the costs of implementation are, generally, quite supportive of encryption.
> Any view on the proportion of TLD operators in each group?

I honestly don’t…  The numbers that have specifically weighed in are small, and for the vast majority of them, it’ll depend completely on the pricing model of commercial DNS operators they depend on.  And that, in turn, leads back to the question of whether the cost difference is getting passed through or not.

Sorry not to have anything more useful.

                                -Bill

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email