IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] New Version Notification for draft-zuo-dprive-encryption-over-udp-00.txt

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 07 July 2015 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 AEEE91AC3EE for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 07:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=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 a4q2tJOpjtUg for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 07:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 83B481AC3F6 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 07:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.101] (142-254-17-100.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.17.100]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t67EHLl0085334 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Jul 2015 07:17:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 142-254-17-100.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.17.100] claimed to be [10.20.30.101]
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <2015070714161016259349@cnnic.cn>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:17:22 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DBBE76F9-49BB-44B4-B77A-5CFFCD4B76CD@vpnc.org>
References: <2015070714161016259349@cnnic.cn>
To: yaojk <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/XXVmsMtU3jgopooN-44NbKp982w>
Cc: dns-privacy <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] New Version Notification for draft-zuo-dprive-encryption-over-udp-00.txt
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: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 14:17:30 -0000

The introduction to this draft implies that it has less latency than DNS-over-DTLS, but gives no measurements in the body of the draft. Are such comparisons available so the WG can balance this against the DNS-over-DTLS proposal? Such a comparison is important, given that what you are proposing is a new encryption protocol, as compared to using the well-established DTLS.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email