On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]> writes: > > > Any DNSvNext protocol MUST work in 100% of network situations where DNS > > works or else it has 0% of being adopted. > > That's simply impossible. A goal like that will just distract us. It is completely possible as I have done that. > > Google is currently working on HTTP over UDP to shave a second of page > load > > times. This group is working is proposing to move the most latency > critical > > interaction from UDP to TLS. > > Some people here pointed out that the initial goal is for stub > resolving, which is not latency critical. I believe this point can be > made more clear in the documents and in the discussion. One easily gets > the idea that this is about Internet-wide DNS. Confusing these two > use-cases is bad. > Stub resolving is totally latency critical. Go talk to some folk who work on browsers. > Personally, for stub-resolving I don't see the need for having two > mechanisms (upgrade-TLS and port-TLS). Just standardize one of them and > be done with it. > > /Simon >
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
