Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter-01.txt

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Thu, 25 July 2019 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <each@isc.org>
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 F21FA12012B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 bE0w8-mqq2JM for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) (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 DB512120129 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed2.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:1:f::88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFC583AB001; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:02:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id BF4294A543; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:02:42 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:02:42 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Cc: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190725170242.GB186@isc.org>
References: <155658243855.16316.18029354473288109146@ietfa.amsl.com> <20190724210726.GA6827@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907251152480.8471@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <624835DE-8E63-4C89-9799-136464B26E34@gmx.net> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907251225140.8471@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1907251021350.23797@bofh.nohats.ca> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907251531570.8471@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907251531570.8471@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/l6_Y-zP1MA-TJMI8j5L0jMj8L6o>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter-01.txt
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: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:02:47 -0000

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 03:36:39PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> These abbreviations are about identifying the transport that is being used
> for the DNS messages. One problem with Do53 is that it isn't specific
> about the transport, because it covers both UDP and TCP. But it's a handy
> abbreviation for DNS over traditional transports. It doesn't identify DNS
> as a whole, just the framing of DNS messages in UDP and TCP.

The other day at ANRW, a paper was presented that compared performance of
DoH, DoT, and Do53. It was unclear to me what transport the authors had
used for their Do53 measaurements - and it makes a significant difference.
I don't know, even now, whether the comparison was apples-to-apples or not.

"Do53" is a handy abbreviation, but I'm concerned that using it as a
coequal peer of DoT and DoH will lead to fuzzy thinking.

-- 
Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.