Re: [DNSOP] TA signal - suggestion to enhance signal

George Michaelson <> Mon, 13 May 2019 04:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1447B120119 for <>; Sun, 12 May 2019 21:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04iDo9reL369 for <>; Sun, 12 May 2019 21:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3921E12002E for <>; Sun, 12 May 2019 21:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m7so8956709ioa.6 for <>; Sun, 12 May 2019 21:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JeolxjMm+WHShmfMWQcaQSFP9Ih/qqM1v6veOuNiQjo=; b=dqtihSFrOQGrgwiZm77hAoEBhznUpDD9DhdhTZUDhYaFR4ur5Dio1yE/8PqJfLwM0O BvBRt5ewcq3CvKU+aY5qwwBsC24lfBlOdzJzSRf4EXnbO1AQd2kGyDOptQV7mChzFV35 nuC/pC9ssM3VUqbEPBtAZIimwjUsa1brMBzNqEdqHvhhk+lbgGe7q3GSIusuIFcgb7BX mQVGeeUxP9srZrlD3JRYPwwhfxbNVRDfhCUi52jJYsgDwoYm/nOEEZ8UBmI25G1qFzd9 +TKIIO36dlqvYBuPCsXUSy66Jcw0SYToN6/2lSTDf3yFljU/MpGbCAt/JUAaqWEWx8in BFQg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JeolxjMm+WHShmfMWQcaQSFP9Ih/qqM1v6veOuNiQjo=; b=S7A84ou7wPw3dn+O7Cr141kfdnxgO56UY5qsGtFz+HlOZ/q+Hqwz2x9IFtqh0/+mB6 oRev09O8EwY1ns3QalgGUXiAplyF3GK/nqbWWHaKpA0kTPgpRR3EQmg0cN+EvDhwCwMA 87wwvWp9ly0skZzFQR2Bnb0/Ga6qknQFq9ovcAXU5zeKOZNV3nd07ESS9eMu5+mffEfq fbXA/kl5IXn/rxao5iym59itCeb5u70Bn1HEfCSbiCcKnkldv8w6x2lKa7zuP8LSJXuB ikPaNxnIjS51CdGpdgs4dXkoMJ+dGJJI1ERguq2mhFKCz7kqCx2jwMyNmnzfxWWcULnv R+3A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX3NmQv9nmJ2JjrK4qdveL+FSys0IOrigqIdGTvlvL9BPmD9KdA OHNUutq/xJEGCt+oVpubPTtFNsBeUJywp/kWKUBq+Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzU/bb7e9HjUj1QBN67h/diZksJc+wWixLf4+YDmWM9zSuRDkt2kG2HF2uDqfX8Kblx73sOOCTxswOugH6LdZc=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:844d:: with SMTP id w13mr13496036ior.228.1557721900543; Sun, 12 May 2019 21:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: George Michaelson <>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 11:31:28 +0700
Message-ID: <>
To: "Wessels, Duane" <>
Cc: Brian Dickson <>, " WG" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] TA signal - suggestion to enhance signal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 04:31:46 -0000

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:21 AM Wessels, Duane
<> wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions.  I think the first discussion needs to be whether there is support for better signals at the expense of possibly less privacy.  My sense of the way things are today is that "privacy is king."
> DW

I think this is an accurate characterisation of the situation. But
having said that, I think the lack of capabilities signalling in DNS,
compared to say SMTP or HTTP is a huge problem, and since we have it
in those protocols, I feel we have a basis to suggest there is not a
blanket ban on this kind of thing in the model.

Because of the massive lack of information about elements of the
system, the lack of signalling is actually causing a problem. Thats
distinct from the hypothetical privacy breach which I acknowledge is a
fear, but its a fear which has to be balanced by the problem space
we're in.