IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Doh] operational issues with doh

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 31 October 2017 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E41F213F5F2 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 h4rNaYSxl5aB for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 939F213F61B for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1823; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1509476319; x=1510685919; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:mime-version; bh=L9KI2DjcFd7Ojs0S6BDHzUQVOW104L/9VHVKiw4F4tI=; b=I6ipbAdoxeoSjNZJQ3vHPNtgsTYYdldLNC8Jm4GZcxA9mhIUtpXA5Sru V1gQLDSKS/pYB484kkbqjLxEtxSJNAkExeZoW44YzZkmQ33O3mQF/aBE1 bY7c+7eL44jT0pVV0V//T9zUMW3gsu08kW/824LtF3ynyiCeBjP/O5Gry w=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CNAADqxvhZ/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBhTGEI4ofdKZgghEHA4pvGAECAQEBAQEBAWsohUdCcQJTGQgBAYofqGWCJ4szD4MuhWyIXoJJgmEFogaEQoIjjheBfIl4hzqWEoE5HziBazQhCB0Vgy6CC4JUQIwMAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,325,1505779200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="658416789"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Oct 2017 18:58:37 +0000
Received: from [10.61.239.244] ([10.61.239.244]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v9VIwbEr002822 for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 18:58:37 GMT
To: doh@ietf.org
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <abe6593a-0bc9-9ed4-4ad4-c03093bcb490@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:57:09 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ct9clcfEIwLwab2XWtugB5eBPNQwLxAW7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/B4iWfc-B5E1YBxH7OuSYii-NfDM>
Subject: [Doh] operational issues with doh
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <doh.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/doh/>
List-Post: <mailto:doh@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 18:58:44 -0000

Hi everyone,

Just to follow up on the lengthy discussion that took place during
chartering, there are some operational issues that use of doh can
create, particularly with regard to load balancers and split DNS.  Do
those go into the draft or do they go into a separate doc?  It's quite
possible they can be mitigated against, and if they can be, and if the
text isn't too long, can I suggest that we start out by having some text
in the draft, and if it starts to get lengthy we split it off?

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email