IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] next steps for draft-opportunistic-adotq

Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> Wed, 24 March 2021 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <woody@pch.net>
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 84EB13A2E33 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 wCaYCdexpKRE for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pch.net (keriomail.pch.net [206.220.231.84]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4D283A2E30 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Footer: cGNoLm5ldA==
Received: from [10.19.48.7] ([69.166.14.2]) by mail.pch.net (Kerio Connect 9.2.7 patch 3) with ESMTPS (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)) for dns-privacy@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:01:18 -0700
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3DD48AAA-837A-4039-AE73-0C774235C1F1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:01:14 +0100
References: <A68841F4-B7CC-4AAC-BC9F-0961ADF2C8FA@rfc1035.com> <DF40D081-1EA8-4E92-BB67-2966E32688DE@nohats.ca> <2E5B5290-CBBE-4F20-AD89-0BDCE3B2AA7F@pch.net> <DB196A4D-2720-4C9E-8A66-C314AB16BA0E@rfc1035.com> <A45C3DAA-C910-427A-9359-E38570D274D3@pch.net> <C6C1D17A-CE7B-4189-BC63-69FD2C5E9FD8@rfc1035.com>
To: dns-privacy@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <C6C1D17A-CE7B-4189-BC63-69FD2C5E9FD8@rfc1035.com>
Message-Id: <EF511250-A025-4377-8FF7-DC151E21248B@pch.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/ZRM93Cg4b2BQbUB9osvvq50DsEk>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] next steps for draft-opportunistic-adotq
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: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:01:44 -0000


> On Mar 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
> What I am saying is this WG needs to think more about the impacts* of Do[TH] on busy authoritative servers (not just TLDs).

I assume folks have read this:

    https://vaibhavbajpai.com/documents/papers/proceedings/dot-pam-2021.pdf

That’s a completely legit concern, but each zone can advertise availability of encrypted connections as much or as little as it wants, and is free to prioritize allocation of encrypted connections to whomever it wants.  So I wouldn’t call it an “impact” so much as a “cost to be managed."

                                -Bill

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email