Stephane, At 2016-12-14 10:46:16 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:21:13AM +0100, > Shane Kerr <[email protected]> wrote > a message of 90 lines which said: > > > > Given that a fallback to TCP/TLS is likely needed even if the > > > right answer is QUIC, and given that however the WG decide to > > > address server authentication and session management should work > > > just as well for TCP/TLS as for QUIC... maybe the WG could > > > experiment with TCP/TLS in the medium term with the longer term > > > plan being to move to QUIC with TCP/TLS as the fallback whenever > > > QUIC seems ready for primetime. > ... > > This seems reasonable to me. It basically implies that we should > > insure some small amount of agility in the encrypted channel, which > > seems like a good idea anyway. > > I smell practical and programming issues there. Soon,we will have four > ways for a DNS client to talk to a name server, UDP, TCP, TLS+TCP, > DTLS+UDP, and no guidance on how to combine them, in which order to do > so (think of the "happy eyeballs" problem), what to do if some > fail... Adding a fifth, QUIC+TLS, won't help. What will the poor > client be supposed to do? I agree this is a pain. If only there was a way to publish information about a server's preferences.... Cheers, -- Shane
pgpmRYOHg4Vgj.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
