Hi, I'm working through my notes from the DPRIVE session regarding the EDNS0 Padding option. My takeaway was as follows:
- Generally, this seems to be a reasonable idea - Besides the use to evade size-based message correlation, this could also be useful in other cases, eg. "proof of work" for clients when requesting larger packets (Peter K.) - However, the draft should only specify the option itself, and not indulge into the various usage scenarios - The EDNS0 assignment policy is Speficiation Required / Expert Review, hence does not necessarily require an RFC - The preferred way forward is individual draft, AD-sponsored. - Discussion can continue on the DPRIVE list Regarding the actual contents of the draft, my takeaway was: - Is "1" the right minimum length for the option? Why not "0"? - Padding must obviously not exceed the announced EDNS0 packet size - some words about that - No consideration is required whether or not a server may pad, because clients are required to ignore unknown options anyways. - The Security considerations section needs more work. Is that in line with the perception of the WG members? Anything I forgot to mention / consider? Thanks, Alex _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
