IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] [Step 2] More discussion needed: state your opinion

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Thu, 15 December 2016 09:13 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 12EB2129C3C for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 01:13:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 ALVrYNpu1HHg for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 01:13:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [217.70.190.232]) (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 BB8A0129C55 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 01:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 571BF31D52; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:13:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 913C6190701; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:09:16 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 10:09:16 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: John Heidemann <johnh@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <20161215090916.GC4348@sources.org>
References: <20161213105936.opaqw6hwwkx3txk2@nic.fr> <20161213154625.6b314fe6@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <11704.1481652111@dash.isi.edu> <20161214124025.4031172a@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <5872.1481734676@dash.isi.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5872.1481734676@dash.isi.edu>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 8.6
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/Wv5PuUcYCUDwPRtlRCdo6SA1Wh0>
Cc: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>, dns-privacy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Step 2] More discussion needed: state your opinion
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 09:13:13 -0000

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 08:57:56AM -0800,
 John Heidemann <johnh@isi.edu> wrote 
 a message of 49 lines which said:

> There's a bunch of possible trade-offs: client latency, server
> memory, client memory, novelty vs. maturity of design, maturity of
> libraries, support by other groups, design complexity, ...

Added to the future next version of the draft
<https://github.com/bortzmeyer/ietf-dprive-step-2/commit/5779cbf94605fbcd174bd5d57544150fc636e620>

> You suggested earlier in the thread that rfc7858 was weaker than
> some alternatives for recurisive-to-auth traffic, so I was trying to
> figure out for which metrics you think it is weaker.

The point was raised by Mukund Sivaraman at the Seoul meeting. If I
remember correctly, his main concern was the state to keep in the
client, because a resolver will talk to hundreds, even thousands of
authoritative name servers.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email