IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Doh] [EXTERNAL] Re: New I-D: draft-reid-doh-operator

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Mon, 25 March 2019 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23EB11203D6; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham 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 aDMnjYly2hgw; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 732401200B3; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:34538) by ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.139]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1h8SDv-000zAq-ik (Exim 4.91) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:13:19 +0000
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:13:19 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
cc: "doh@ietf.org" <doh@ietf.org>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <A4378E9B-4219-4C4E-BEE0-695E3B5BCD8F@fugue.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903251554300.13313@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <04C556AF-D3B3-41A5-B119-8FE5F81FB9A7@huitema.net> <1878722055.8877.1553241201213@appsuite.open-xchange.com> <CABcZeBPmpN-cEPK92QQW3bkvc41Cx5g7B_YuUXCJK3j1qF995Q@mail.gmail.com> <20190322.101434.307385973.sthaug@nethelp.no> <32A78B0C-52B6-46E5-A46F-D63D21DEC52C@sky.uk> <CAOdDvNqb2+4Az+g608QRjYt+ZdUt1L9GAc=MJM3-xd0ZNmeBEQ@mail.gmail.com> <1C720263-10E4-423B-B152-5673E115A4C1@gmail.com> <CAOdDvNrQiM2bpi65tCvwjanQTM1KtcZjRL0aOwS2oAryTR-YEA@mail.gmail.com> <E7E54A3B-4C85-4B64-BEFD-51891534DC9D@gmail.com> <CAOdDvNqKja9SRWa7FpjnGR3XZbVwZbitoU0yuWc+oXw3xXFEQA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCirtvx2eipt65+TbazZ1f4uKiu6HA2PjVmPiAkGjN-hbEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNoKGVhNkdacKUTefa40f_spxjvmDsbd5g78+A9TBuUdKg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCirbM=8NJhAqS73+hF824z--8-gYmg55Phq9i-S7X4SoDA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1kpuCkpJyuMiVRnnbw+aUMFeo7xzOguxXvw80iuHHtoBg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903251500480.13313@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <A4378E9B-4219-4C4E-BEE0-695E3B5BCD8F@fugue.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="1870870841-985717742-1553530399=:13313"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/jWCFzqa9t_xiiZlsgAlTSjnQTv0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Doh] [EXTERNAL] Re: New I-D: draft-reid-doh-operator
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:13:26 -0000

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
> > If I understand it correctly, DTLS leaves MTU and fragmentation up to the
> > application protocol. The DNS has horrible packet size problems, so it
> > needs a lot more help than DTLS provides. QUIC is much better.
>
> Indeed.  My point was simply that this avoids ordering problems, just as
> QUIC does.  I suspect that it is worth having DNS-over-DTLS; QUIC is
> great, but based on what I’ve been seeing, quite a lot, and probably not
> appropriate for a lot of use cases where DNS-over-DTLS would do just
> fine.

It isn't so much ordering that is the problem, but not delaying answer B
when answer A suffers packet loss. I'm kind of curious about what the
relative trade-offs might be between DoQ and DoT with a decent SACK
implementation, when there is not much latency between the client and the
resolver. DNS-over-DTLS will need its own application layer retry
strategy. I kind of prefer the idea of DNS being able to re-use a good
off-the-shelf transport protocol rather than doing its own thing.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Irish Sea: West or northwest 4 or 5. Smooth or slight. Showers. Good.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email