IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] ADoT signalling

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 3CA3212011F for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 07:38:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=ly6uTmhZ; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=k+GAt47J
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 fWzPwpnObBVB for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 07:38:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C146120033 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 07:38:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 69889 invoked by uid 100); 4 Nov 2019 15:38:40 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=110f8.5dc04600.k1911; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=lCBmKO2ccM5sQelMQTBgyt/XBd06R18CQIVM0YQ5bd4=; b=ly6uTmhZZmhAJ9TzbR8wT5V4IkVQBUJrjFxxLAr8aGsmeFfA+udHQMYbfI1BNfMm0hqrJT0SudKrTAIr2e4fe61K5VxxZxoEzw7ghnM1SCanC8+JBCp9xSXOOReqCIOHxpdDcU7bifF2Kjtaq9nuy9FSafCqgbntSXfsAkon4tggtH2ZSqoKT97vC8R3ySATURcXKSikR35px6GnEVcl8V920hqCa7P/1oQ9oYMC5G5ON9h+DR+CkFlzaju8fi7T
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=110f8.5dc04600.k1911; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=lCBmKO2ccM5sQelMQTBgyt/XBd06R18CQIVM0YQ5bd4=; b=k+GAt47J5vm/oSpSn/VC2bEoG1jGJiuLZIVDP/mDowjWLLlCgcOh0d9+yl4eWakzPuWiYqEyx/QkTASGpPExz8FJuMeOo3E4E3LyIAAwlNntdqrJUnpfEf8iyM8x1I0IDxfIXm7qNUFNh6HB6xCq7HrkW1L5zf55RWRjgPMjuBlHWcEXfCS6EH767MMxJcuJ5tKl22aTupl1HthE7FnSYv+YaehKGbJ8G5ZpFFltKOsyIwdv7B6HWhFYajWhSUEV
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 10:38:40 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.21.99999.352.1911041036120.67921@gal.iecc.com>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20191104153226.GA15325@nic.fr>
References: <20191103223335.4395EE54E62@ary.local> <20191104142555.GA10561@nic.fr> <CABcZeBNDPbNznf8dSA8NdVH4TMVJEGGNjR09k4GTyjXWaEm0ZA@mail.gmail.com> <20191104153226.GA15325@nic.fr>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.99999 (BSF 352 2019-06-22)
Cleverness: None detected
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/RTPHuGomcs5WiTwMTtLmPfLyZe4>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] ADoT signalling
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 15:38:44 -0000

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Not all resolvers are big boxes in the central datacenter. I may want
> to run a resolver on a small box at home even if my ISP blocks port
> 853.

I don't think anyone expects port 53 to go away.

> I tend to agree with Stephen Farrell here. If we insist on perfect
> resistance to active attackers, we may never deploy anything.

Same answer, port 853 is additional to port 53.

> For signaling, my personal preference goes to DANE, anyway.

I'll add it to the list.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email