[dns-privacy] Re: [Ext] [DNSOP] Proposal for opportunistic transport signaling from authoritative servers

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Mon, 30 June 2025 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28CE63BC0924; Mon, 30 Jun 2025 11:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pn-rxDZcqokL; Mon, 30 Jun 2025 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa2.lax.icann.org (ppa2.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.77]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAFC93BC091F; Mon, 30 Jun 2025 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.5]) by ppa2.lax.icann.org (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTPS id 55UI06xo005740 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:00:06 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1748.26; Mon, 30 Jun 2025 11:00:05 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([169.254.44.235]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([169.254.44.235]) with mapi id 15.02.1748.026; Mon, 30 Jun 2025 11:00:05 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Johan Stenstam <johan.stenstam=40internetstiftelsen.se@dmarc.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] Proposal for opportunistic transport signaling from authoritative servers
Thread-Index: AQHb5QdGVMrFeGJIgUycryagxa2vSrQcfOYA
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:00:05 +0000
Message-ID: <B0AF7CE9-5B54-4316-9A28-73785E2ED69A@icann.org>
References: <ABBFE723-E2C4-4DA3-98D5-398273E7890B@internetstiftelsen.se>
In-Reply-To: <ABBFE723-E2C4-4DA3-98D5-398273E7890B@internetstiftelsen.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <0873971DE046844885795A0ED2F0E589@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1099,Hydra:6.1.7,FMLib:17.12.80.40 definitions=2025-06-30_04,2025-06-27_01,2025-03-28_01
Message-ID-Hash: LX6FC3AJBQEVGEP7EVRYQQHIMUZHDAGJ
X-Message-ID-Hash: LX6FC3AJBQEVGEP7EVRYQQHIMUZHDAGJ
X-MailFrom: paul.hoffman@icann.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dns-privacy.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: DNSOP Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>, "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>, Erik Bergström <erik.bergstrom@internetstiftelsen.se>, Leon Fernandez <leon.fernandez@internetstiftelsen.se>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [dns-privacy] Re: [Ext] [DNSOP] Proposal for opportunistic transport signaling from authoritative servers
List-Id: Addition of privacy to the DNS protocol <dns-privacy.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/_BszgGSR8lLQsjZLNiPsoxR_S5A>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dns-privacy>
List-Help: <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dns-privacy-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dns-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dns-privacy-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dns-privacy-leave@ietf.org>

Greetings. I'm not sure why you think that adding this record to the Additional section will cause any more uptake than what we already have with RFC 9539. That is, if a resolver is aware to look for that record, it is already able to do the unilateral probing (all resolvers are). Is the extra code going to cause more adoption?

--Paul Hoffman