IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Possible UDP-Option: Cookie

Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@employees.org> Wed, 20 March 2019 11:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dfawcus@employees.org>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF49F1310CC for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 04:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 A9O5-Q_3GEMI for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 04:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bugle.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9D4D1277D9 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 04:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bugle.employees.org (Postfix, from userid 1736) id 4DCEFFECC004; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:23:42 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 12:23:42 +0100
To: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-tsvwg@employees.org>, tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190320112342.GA55553@bugle.employees.org>
References: <5be88c76-d65a-c491-86be-74a52fef7687@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S35h+ANRpqrEyC97JocXUrDw_+b85a8bP7QgjSchMPXF-g@mail.gmail.com> <62f9f885-5dd6-78d4-2d8a-8fab83871529@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S35bb5YpjR16OfQN+JJw3O3LG=NqkdFEnKdTEd3UoZWo5A@mail.gmail.com> <190BFA86-2DE3-4BB1-A833-E67D49B641FB@strayalpha.com> <CALx6S35vym9jfN5E6HVLU5RJj0k2p0i=dc1a+pb=ETx1WQUoxg@mail.gmail.com> <57E0E8CF-EA9A-4BC8-89D2-296D3CBBF7BA@strayalpha.com> <20190319231309.GA38527@bugle.employees.org> <20190320100743.GA19737@bugle.employees.org> <A00FF02E-13D7-40C2-AF01-3CEE206E8812@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <A00FF02E-13D7-40C2-AF01-3CEE206E8812@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1 (2018-12-01)
From: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@employees.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/va7Cvv_XKGrDAX8nS3n74p7Zi2M>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Possible UDP-Option: Cookie
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:23:45 -0000

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 03:35:53AM -0700, tjw ietf wrote:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7873/
> 
> You know of the DNS cookies standard right?

The point was not protecting DNS per-se, but rather having
a generic mechanism usable by all applications.

Especially if UDP segmentation was going to be employed.

DF

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email