IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] Some additional signalling ideas

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Sun, 31 March 2019 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.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 7E8DD120185 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 07:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 t48dSmCC4rPG for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 07:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 781CD1200B6 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 07:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id q66so5776129ljq.7 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 07:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yt9bV9o0xiZhQD8xT9Lu/1mdBTRr1Sm/KMCKV7Do/Ww=; b=NHD2UwFImGOZ+yzOfHDL1gueC0+/gC3hzpA/12Pb2HOb4hM0fKxT409Sn/Q0YCsiyG 9mrF02566rDcjq7gMQ2sdr0TuaVwtWesdgx6lxDmU235V12ssFhXlX6HyrBWybTwRfxu eLohyl0c9q84wf2jKqnD7FrMq5L5MVaG4pht9yX122exVdUJlFbOCokwiW8c5awJL4z/ Vqd+zZjWcsWlWrPlivi9BL7nCfcDy6BR6PejbevUTSaoN8XjHnCi9ocp39M9Hz9nThkf P0TXtWSF0Vt9E/G9zMs953VgUgQ4WPFIdlaMc0a0xTIB1JLv38EYOtFJx34N4FGWQGjE d9cA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yt9bV9o0xiZhQD8xT9Lu/1mdBTRr1Sm/KMCKV7Do/Ww=; b=aUTCDVU/iKiy2+xNaykqO7xNgHnP9BlvksILu/A93uGmMmgZDPILzOyqu9DYMtj1aE 8IKxxIH+KhW/cjBrbVnQylPxdu8jLaweSG2M7b0lKS3XWKPYOJpOcAL730NPBERBS9K4 /2fF+VRjUwwq396QmkTHmgj7U5409ZOp+FLWXeS+TvpCYtNg9AfNafegqTCLRNkJJ6LW vFK5IVotYa+129NfCwhEDescGZrVIx26wS3j+b0ccV9R4iARGlTMcgkNpD+1gV453QO+ ldy57YgYp92Fw2DS2gm7X1pGZiMK/69LtcTsLdp9SmBHu3ylsAzZYj2CMFojztuoCck5 mExA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUgmFWBaVLNYELC27B+lLULnRyEKSAcLLxV54Rlgw/FiSlR9QMf Gg+ctyvBgQiM8Zjnrv3Kbn5dKbd2dfVSbibYslc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzGNlvfO2nZwo58NwPZaXukSwPxU9Ofm4UzAm8IpMqlSJHAe/i7e2hj/GE7oYv5T5RiXKUhhdx62FCHTJw1mB0=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7007:: with SMTP id l7mr13755979ljc.101.1554042700613; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 07:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACsn0ck-SNweieak5Fn7TOLLZTvsQNo6+w3nezxKuZPq0Z4QNA@mail.gmail.com> <8EA0EDE7-99B7-4AD4-B3A4-48D3D592119D@fl1ger.de>
In-Reply-To: <8EA0EDE7-99B7-4AD4-B3A4-48D3D592119D@fl1ger.de>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 07:31:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CACsn0cnK_GgjFMrH4JUeaDLWXbbB-wKeQ17eijd0LOmRZ89iMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de>
Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/mX3heuMsYHrDfz6Rm0RVGsPKtRU>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Some additional signalling ideas
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: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 14:31:45 -0000

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 7:15 AM Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de> wrote:
>
> Moin!
>
> > On 31. Mar 2019, at 14:48, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> > Please rip these ideas to shreds:
> I assume with this sentence you mean that the following ideas are bad ideas. Is this correct? If so why not say so, as there are a lot of people in here including myself who are not native English speakers.

I meant I think they are good and they probably aren't so why? I don't
know that much about DNS.

>
> > 1) An extra bit in a response for "you could have asked over TLS"
> > 2) An extra field when looking up the nameserver for  "you can ask
> > that server over TLS"
> > 3) An extra field/bit/convention for "this nameserver supports tls"
> > (like tls-ns vs ns)
> Can you please explain your opinion on these rather then stating that they are bad (or good).
>
> So long
> Ralf
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>


-- 
"Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains".
--Rousseau.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email