Re: [DNSOP] my dnse vision

Francis Dupont <> Wed, 05 March 2014 13:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8377C1A006B for <>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:09:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UcMsefMmwLxs for <>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:09:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACFE51A02AD for <>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:09:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s25D9heW077063; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:09:43 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from
Message-Id: <>
From: Francis Dupont <>
To: Tim Wicinski <>
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:13:51 GMT. <>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 14:09:43 +0100
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] my dnse vision
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:09:49 -0000

 In your previous mail you wrote:

>  This is some good summarizing.  With your solution, you don't mention 
>  UDP. I would consider the lack of UDP an issue with moving forward at 
>  least for wide deployment.  Others seem to think otherwise.

=> I didn't add UDP in constraints but I made the "state" term loose
enough to be able to be intepreted as same state lifetime than for DNS
over TCP as currently specified. You have the extra round trip too...

>  I'd be interested in hearing opinions on this.

=> I am too. In theory the encription is in the session layer so
we can't avoid a transport (i.e., UDP vs TCP) dependency.

>  The WG will help us chair form the discussion, but I still feel there is 
>  a need for a more formalized problem statement. Stephane's draft goes a 
>  long way, do we think it covers all the bases?

=> yes, we need the problem before the solution (I said less than
one hour ago that XXX was another example of an IETF solution
looking for its problem :-).