IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] my dnse vision

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Wed, 05 March 2014 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 B95901A065E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:48:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 iapR9_7ldhR5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:48:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9691A06AF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:48:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 59FC53BD2E; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:48:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by tyrion (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BF0B6F00AF7; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:42:13 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 14:42:13 +0000
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
Message-ID: <20140305144213.GA19170@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <201403051107.s25B7ext069332@givry.fdupont.fr> <02410136-DFE2-42C8-A91E-AA84641AFFCF@ogud.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <02410136-DFE2-42C8-A91E-AA84641AFFCF@ogud.com>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 13.10 (saucy)
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/y5KpZ5X7cH6LVJnUxtO0rtbZIKs
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] my dnse vision
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: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 14:48:34 -0000

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 12:51:52PM +0000,
 Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> wrote 
 a message of 41 lines which said:

> I NEED confidence that I'm talking to the real 8.8.8.8 if the only
> way to get that is encryption then I support it.

The goal of the DNSE BoF was privacy, not authentication. For
authentication, we have DNSSEC :-) For the case where the validating
resolver is far away and we need to secure the last mile against
AD-bit tampering, well... no problem statement published, no I-D and
no BoF yet.

> I would prefer that before we start talking about encryption is we
> agree on label stripping by recursive resolvers as that minimizes
> the leak of information to root/tld servers.

Why before? Encryption and QNAME minimization are both great things
and should be done but they solve different privacy problems:

* surveillance by a third-party sniffing the wire (encryption)
* surveillance by the name servers' operators (QNAME minimization)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email