IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] Joel Jaeggli's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-edns0-padding-02: (with DISCUSS)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 29 February 2016 21:16 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF5C1B3C3D; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:16:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.307
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 gAtYWOZmV9pC; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:16:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4AEB1B3C3A; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:16:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D60BE50; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 21:16:52 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KP13x1IAR3c6; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 21:16:50 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.75] (unknown [86.46.16.150]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B6B5BE25; Mon, 29 Feb 2016 21:16:50 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1456780610; bh=u6Im7D/oOTO3lMHv7kZmXZY2PNlVAAgNNgWuvGt3S/g=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=wWtYPvoRDJ4x7CaZ+OAvCEPJ4LVCqG3GY89kTdppEWY0L5UKUspb/IvrMspKIxrUo qPEGPlKwZi+ynFA3DfJki8sTWrYTqaMLZ8j8vpkiFbYyIi6Nvukrire9xaNTnARWe3 7XxQO3FzSqziMVuZU8hqgqO6L/PRjtvTI3sVcNWg=
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <20160229195527.11806.46599.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56D4B121.1020001@cs.tcd.ie> <CALaySJ+rfEm5GFvYdO_dKqangPiWdu_T9tBTqK6F5zNiiSRNjA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <56D4B541.2040202@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 21:16:49 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+rfEm5GFvYdO_dKqangPiWdu_T9tBTqK6F5zNiiSRNjA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms010700070700080408030505"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/R0gZ9CD0YW4uXmf0ZqYPBfxEXsU>
Cc: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-dprive-edns0-padding@ietf.org, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, dprive-chairs@ietf.org, dns-privacy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Joel Jaeggli's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-edns0-padding-02: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 21:16:56 -0000


On 29/02/16 21:10, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Is there a difference between what it says ("if the DNS transport is
> not encrypted") and what you said ("in the clear")? 

Depends on what one means by DNS transport I guess. I don't recall
whether the WG had chatted about that.

> Would there be a
> reason not to change "SHOULD" to "MUST" in the existing text?

If e.g. DNS/UDP/IPsec is not an "encrypted DNS transport" then a SHOULD
is better. If DNS/UDP/IPsec is considered "encrypted DNS transport" it
looks like a MUST is fine, but I've not yet re-read this doc for the
telechat, and of course the WG may have had something else in mind.

S.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email