On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 7:06 AM, Jim Fenton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/16/18 9:17 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Jim Fenton <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> I suggest that as part of WG Last Call that the DNS Directorate be >> consulted, largely to socialize this with them so they aren't surprised by >> the request load requirements. >> > > Should the draft say more than what Section 9.2 already says? > > > 9.2 describes the problem, but it's expressed in terms of a DoS attack on > (primarily) validators. The DNS folk will be more concerned with the > overall load on the infrastructure caused by ARC, not specifically on > attack scenarios. So in consulting the DNS directorate, it would be good to > mention the operational impact of 9.2. > > I also wonder if it would be helpful to mitigate the operational impact by > saying that AS SHOULD use the same selector as the associated AMS. > I would be opposed to adding the suggestion of this sort of restriction on the basis of hypothetical load impacts. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
