IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> Tue, 08 July 2025 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <woody@pch.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64BEE41A78A8 for <dnsop@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2025 15:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.467
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.232, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=pch.net
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 a8attT3Ttx2Y for <dnsop@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2025 15:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from secmail.pch.net (secmail.pch.net [206.220.231.87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B6F941A78A2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2025 15:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from secmail.pch.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by secmail.pch.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4bcFnY35Ctz4xJJ1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2025 15:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: secmail.pch.net (amavisd-new); dkim=pass reason="pass (just generated, assumed good)" header.d=pch.net
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=pch.net; h= x-mailer:message-id:in-reply-to:to:references:date:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:from; s= secmail_dkim; t=1752012992; x=1754604993; bh=At18W4O5l54inng8Ujz TsIKETM3nvsvX7PJ9P4CMRfY=; b=BNJugySo2diu3423TswuAXdnopVmkCdB9w8 9gxG6z7BToU3P96S2p/QTWYGUB27g95D0CSOwCeB2MM+LQxAcdjrdCvO1T4fPAZI PheizDiERqhzspPfJYNoU3NC+d1ggPcwAe/4zG9TItvZYmDp+NgLJjbAIPjJpnIt kBuYTCvdClaMOOGGJ8Vs7eL3SNSxEyhGNZNmB5IVH2PXR2vRBcmkb0vVhWcuIJiX 4JAOqxncVz8butmS/KsJucCToE/VdB6V0qybdlBXyfyyv9NVzeki7jmDqB3GKFdH BWcJ262QopqIQBjqCaVIuJG9C72QnRnunyqmgeFF373x22GyCWg==
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at secmail.pch.net
Received: from secmail.pch.net ([127.0.0.1]) by secmail.pch.net (secmail.pch.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id kBNuh4uwrPE2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2025 15:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (itv-02 [69.166.14.6]) by secmail.pch.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4bcFnW71VXz4xHqP; Tue, 8 Jul 2025 15:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.600.51.1.1\))
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:16:29 +0200
References: <DM6PR15MB23616C3158B0B75763712251B378A@DM6PR15MB2361.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <28E91939-7F62-4707-AD88-2492CDFB2E32@strandkip.nl> <DM6PR15MB236101155DF60A3C47B7138FB378A@DM6PR15MB2361.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <efce2948-196e-4ec9-949f-4c6897ae3a19@desec.io> <2A19040C-0175-4332-9C20-9E5FC8E5DB8A@meta.com>
To: Working Group DNSOP <dnsop@ietf.org>, "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <2A19040C-0175-4332-9C20-9E5FC8E5DB8A@meta.com>
Message-Id: <E41640EA-456F-4507-A355-B71C7F2B6A61@pch.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.600.51.1.1)
Message-ID-Hash: PNFLMKKZJX5UVGQNVRHLWLIOQNIPFPRJ
X-Message-ID-Hash: PNFLMKKZJX5UVGQNVRHLWLIOQNIPFPRJ
X-MailFrom: woody@pch.net
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: [dns-privacy] Proposal for opportunistic transport signaling from authoritative servers
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/3eKdo-Nk_f1_iij5KGulPCbwsyU>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>


> On Jul 9, 2025, at 00:13, Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40meta.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 2025, at 5:39 PM, Peter Thomassen <peter=40desec.io@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> It may be more difficult to directly compare reachability of port 853 from other vantage points, both because other network reasons may be at fault, and because the observer needs more capabilities (does RIPE ATLAS support that?).
> I don’t think it’s more difficult.  “Can I reach port 853?” seems easier than “Did the delegation response from this address include a SVCB record in the additional section?”.

Why not both?  Belt-and-suspenders is always better.

                                -Bill

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status