Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies-00

Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org> Tue, 16 December 2014 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <muks@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CC81A7035 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:14:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=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 zCxXEmTmsysp for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:14:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.banu.com (mail.banu.com [IPv6:2a01:4f8:140:644b::225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C64741A7000 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:13:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from totoro.home.mukund.org (unknown [115.118.78.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.banu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 80A26E60088; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 17:13:21 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 22:43:18 +0530
From: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20141216171318.GA23468@totoro.home.mukund.org>
References: <20141216152511.GA22255@totoro.home.mukund.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6TrnltStXW4iwmi0"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20141216152511.GA22255@totoro.home.mukund.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/lvIhD-XWzzCnZBIWWlHn44DNjmI
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies-00
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 17:14:03 -0000

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 08:55:12PM +0530, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> Given the risk of EDNS payload size related drops from an uknown server
> and extra roundtrips, what are the reasons why this option should be
> used in preference to TCP (that is just 1 RTT longer to get an answer
> from) and has several other advantages?

Sorry, TCP also takes 2 RTT similar to UDP with DNS cookies. I had
included the initial UDP query by mistake, but this won't be involved if
TCP is directly tried.

		Mukund