Hi Stephane, Brian,
At 07:44 AM 09-01-2020, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
doh, dnssd and dprive (plus dnsop)?
Yes.
People (mostly at the IETF) interested by DNS privacy. When preparing
RFC 7626, we saw that many IETF participants had fuzzy (and sometimes
wrong) ideas about the DNS so this introduction seems a good idea.
Ok.
I'm confused. Is it a real question? Anyway, it proves that a tutorial
on the DNS is useful :-) So, "data" is the content of the Answer,
Additional and Authority sections in the answer. RFC 7626, section
2.1.
It was an actual question. Thank you for clarifying that it only
refers to the Answer and other sections. I also asked about the
meaning of "is public". Would it be possible for the working group
to provide feedback about that?
No. (If you say Yes, please quote the relevant RFC.) DNS is a
protocol, the way a machine provisions its resolver(s) is out of scope.
The Abstract of the draft states that it describes the privacy issues
associated with the use of the DNS by Internet users. Section 1 of
the draft states the use of RFC 1034 and RFC 1035 has many privacy
implications. If I understood the above, the draft is only about
what is in RFC 1034 and RFC 1035 and everything else is out of
scope. Is that correct?
That's a very serious misrepresentation of DoH. Counter-example:
Google Chrome did DNS resolution with UDP, a long time ago.
I mentioned web browser and not Google Chrome. I tested a web
browser which is not Google Chrome. The DNS queries were sent to the
local resolver. I did another test with Firefox. The DNS queries
were also sent to the local resolver.
Again, it seems you don't know the difference between a protocol and
an implementation.
Ok.
Could the Working Group please see the questions [1] about Section
3.2 and Section 5?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/lS2BdqksRMwKYgg8McnEHEDwhlc
_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
