Our thought process (or perhaps mine) was that it's so easy to offer to
solve everything and you end up solving nothing.
I've been reticent to put forth the qname-minimisation work in DNSOP not
because I don't think it belongs there, but the time spent on the
editorial minutia of the DNSOP rechartering left me a bit bewildered.
I suspect the chairs should just ask our Glorious AD for advice.
tim
On 10/6/14 11:26 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:44 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> wrote:
[Keep [email protected] in the loop only if it is substantive comments on
the WG creation, please]
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 10:38:35AM -0700,
The IESG <[email protected]> wrote
a message of 68 lines which said:
The primary focus of this Working Group is to develop mechanisms
that provide confidentiality between DNS Clients and Iterative
Resolvers,
I do not see why the group is limited to this point. 1) Some technques
(such as hop-to-hop encryption) work exactly the same for this case
and the case of resolvers<->authoritative. 2) The problem of data
gathering by authoritative name servers is as serious as the problem
of sniffing by third parties between a stub client and a resolver, and
should be addressed at the same level.
Well different techniques might be “better” in the two cases, i.e. connection
from client to Recursive resolver
may only be kept open for a short time while the connection from Recursive
Resolver to a BIG DNS data provider
might be always-on.
So I think the charter is right in saying “will focus on last mile” and check
if that solution will scale to other cases.
Olafur
_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
