IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] Authoritative DoT or DoH

Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> Fri, 15 March 2019 05:34 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 6E6EB128709 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 22:34:00 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 sx9Xv1KxgatB for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 22:33:59 -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 12628127598 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 22:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Footer: cGNoLm5ldA==
Received: from [10.19.48.67] ([69.166.14.2]) (authenticated user woody@pch.net) by mail.pch.net (Kerio Connect 9.2.7 patch 3) with ESMTPSA (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)); Thu, 14 Mar 2019 22:33:55 -0700
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Message-Id: <65B5A12B-C5A1-42D9-9B5B-A74C853BA049@pch.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FDA8C539-8505-4649-8AAC-C636D6CAD67E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 22:33:44 -0700
In-Reply-To: <C8284F2D-F46A-484E-A145-99C0D8ADBC58@verisign.com>
Cc: "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
To: "Henderson, Karl" <KHenderson=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <C8284F2D-F46A-484E-A145-99C0D8ADBC58@verisign.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/fCskvW7_ZM8nG4h_Vbv9t41hYLI>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Authoritative DoT or DoH
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: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 05:34:01 -0000


> On Mar 14, 2019, at 12:18 PM, Henderson, Karl <KHenderson=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> Is there any compelling reason at this point to be considering DoH for recursive resolver-to-authoritative name server communications?

Nope, because there’s already a DoT for recursive-to-authoritative draft.

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bortzmeyer-dprive-resolver-to-auth-01.txt

                                -Bill

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email