IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com> Thu, 15 December 2016 09:02 UTC

Return-Path: <tireddy@cisco.com>
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 24F5F129C55 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 01:02:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 RysFNTYyvN5A for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 01:02:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21DBC129C4D for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 01:02:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3248; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1481792559; x=1483002159; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=k+h+ipsmkmgdFQiwpZvuSfV4Iqn6ioGSYDCpNXwNCJw=; b=TIL7AZduT52V8JH/SGoXiMC5vKq9ZgbFbwzlsQBuhUVZdpTq1exfl836 YuKaJ1Yr7mu4OlmsmvMkGH25glGIq++DbnK/ODbP0FZ8SyUTl2pQ+l/Wm zFD+4+E4+5OyKyUejrSuk8P048FqWqukktQtn1SrVxOLJZ/XIDZNShjUt o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AUAQA6W1JY/5tdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgzcBAQEBAR9agQYHjUeXG5ULggkfC4V4AhqBYD8UAQIBAQEBAQEBYiiEaAEBAQMBAQEhEToCCQwEAgEIEQQBAQECAiMDAgICJQsUAQgIAgQBDQUIiFsIDqongiiLDQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFgQuFM4RbhCUNLYJtgl0FiFyHZ4ooAZEmkFSOFIQOAR83gSIphUlyhXyBL4ENAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,351,1477958400"; d="scan'208";a="173145913"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Dec 2016 09:02:39 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com (xch-rcd-020.cisco.com [173.37.102.30]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uBF92deG020030 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 15 Dec 2016 09:02:39 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-017.cisco.com (173.37.102.27) by XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com (173.37.102.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:02:38 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-017.cisco.com ([173.37.102.27]) by XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com ([173.37.102.27]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:02:38 -0600
From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, 'Paul Hoffman' <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, 'Shane Kerr' <shane@time-travellers.org>
Thread-Topic: [dns-privacy] [Step 2] More discussion needed: state your opinion
Thread-Index: AQHSVZH9cVvMhPa8G0GNfsfWuwXVm6EItyQA
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 09:02:38 +0000
Message-ID: <45e7fd2609e642578832a3bcb420dc8e@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com>
References: <20161213105936.opaqw6hwwkx3txk2@nic.fr> <20161213154625.6b314fe6@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <95029041-8B56-460B-820A-B22D162019AB@vpnc.org> <046801d25579$4ec91350$ec5b39f0$@huitema.net> <ca21e0b1-3dd8-a2e7-b238-fc00b1560e54@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <ca21e0b1-3dd8-a2e7-b238-fc00b1560e54@cs.tcd.ie>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.142.120.173]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/kHEIC-BBuyfOG4476bSc-uznwJw>
Cc: "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <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: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 09:02:43 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dns-privacy [mailto:dns-privacy-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 4:10 AM
> To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>; 'Paul Hoffman'
> <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>; 'Shane Kerr' <shane@time-travellers.org>
> Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Step 2] More discussion needed: state your opinion
> 
> 
> (With no hats...)
> 
> On 13/12/16 19:44, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 11:16 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> >>
> >> If what we invent has better characteristics than DTLS or TLS, that
> >> means that the TLS WG failed to find something that we could. That
> >> seems
> >> *incredibly* unlikely, given the people active in the two WGs.
> >
> > Actually, QUIC might provide an answer, if you are willing to wait a
> > couple years.
> 
> Yeah, I think QUIC might be good here. And maybe the 2 years isn't so bad
> either...

How will DNS benefit from QUIC ?
DNS can use (D)TLS 1.3 just like QUIC using TLS 1.3.

-Tiru

> 
> Given that a fallback to TCP/TLS is likely needed even if the right answer is
> QUIC, and given that however the WG decide to address server authentication
> and session management should work just as well for TCP/TLS as for QUIC...
> maybe the WG could experiment with TCP/TLS in the medium term with the
> longer term plan being to move to QUIC with TCP/TLS as the fallback whenever
> QUIC seems ready for primetime.
> 
> There're probably some flaws in the above, but it might be a plan.
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> 
> > Runs over UDP, uses TLS 1.3 key negotiation, encrypts pretty much
> > everything, enables 0-RTT, and manages multiple flows. A one-query per
> > QUIC-flow model would provide better service than TCP because it does
> > not suffer from head of queue blocking, and better service than DTCP
> > because it does not limit the amount of data sent in queries and
> > response. But of course, the QUIC WG is just getting started, so it
> > will probably take two years before we can start deployment of something
> like DNS over QUIC.
> >
> > -- Christian Huitema
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dns-privacy mailing list
> > dns-privacy@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
> >

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email