On Tue 2015-11-03 21:54:27 +0900, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> During the meeting on Monday, it was obvious the Working Group wanted to
> make this an official EDNS option. We reached out to the author and
> while he is traveling for an extended period of time, he is happy to
> work on edits (with a small delay built in, but nothing this impatient
> chair finds too onerous).
>
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-mayrhofer-edns0-padding
>
> The draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mayrhofer-edns0-padding/
>
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
> by DPRIVE, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
I support adoption of this draft. I have reviewed it and think it is
sensible.
I have also implemented it for queries in the getdns client library, and
it worked fine in communication with servers listening over TLS, making
otherwise-distinguishable queries indistinguishable to a network
observer:
Table 0. Ethernet Frame sizes for packet containing DNS query
Transport | query to | query to
used | example.com | www.example.com
--------------------------+--------------+-------------------
cleartext UDP | 82 octets | 86 octets
cleartext TCP | 108 octets | 112 octets
TLS over TCP | 137 octets | 141 octets
(padded to 512) TLS over TCP | 609 octets | 609 octets
I used a value from the local/experimental range of DNS options (i chose
65461), but i'd like to move to using a standard EDNS(0) OPT code.
The registry here:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#dns-parameters-11
suggests that the registration procedure is "Expert Review", and points
to Olafur, who i'm Cc'ing here.
Can we ask for early codepoint assignment? The registry has a lot of
space, and the draft is simple and easy to implement.
Regards,
--dkg
_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
