On 7/16/18 1:00 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 7:06 AM, Jim Fenton <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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.
It wasn't meant as a restriction. I was trying to decide on the right normative word to use here, and the IETF usage of SHOULD is probably too strong. I'd be happy with a MAY there; I don't think it hurts to point out that it's a good thing to do, from the standpoint of both DNS load and also extra lookups for the verifier.
-Jim
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
