IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> Wed, 14 December 2016 11:58 UTC

Return-Path: <shane@time-travellers.org>
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 553CC129DE4 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 03:58:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 s2WQJIm4dnfA for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 03:58:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time-travellers.nl.eu.org (c.time-travellers.nl.eu.org [IPv6:2a02:2770::21a:4aff:fea3:eeaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07B82129DDB for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 03:58:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [2001:470:78c8:2:8451:b161:196c:6f38] (helo=pallas.home.time-travellers.org) by time-travellers.nl.eu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <shane@time-travellers.org>) id 1cH8DT-0008BE-QG; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:59:23 +0000
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 12:58:28 +0100
From: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Message-ID: <20161214125828.3b317305@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1612131054220.13896@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <20161213105936.opaqw6hwwkx3txk2@nic.fr> <20161213154625.6b314fe6@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <20161213154133.prn6h7rdwk7md5aj@nic.fr> <alpine.LRH.2.20.1612131054220.13896@bofh.nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; boundary="Sig_/Ybqr20XTHKW+Ih795X8sct9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/Y8pUC7HH7TFuiCys334MqBC9Sxk>
Cc: 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: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:58:35 -0000

Paul,

At 2016-12-13 11:24:29 -0500
Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:

> >> AIUI the draft, if we want to use DNS the problem is that we want to
> >> know how to encrypt a session to a name server, but we can't look up
> >> anything about the name server in the DNS because we don't yet know
> >> how to encrypt a session to the name server.  
> >
> > I disagree. We can look up without keys. It just has to be without
> > privacy.  
> 
> Even better, since you are going to setup a secure connection to that name
> server anyway, there is no privacy lost by querying for its public key
> in DNS out in the open.

That assumes that the server will be publishing its own information. I
don't think that this is necessarily true - although perhaps it can be
made a requirement (or recommendation) for encrypted communication?

But yes this is actually a fairly compelling observation. :)

Cheers,

--
Shane

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email