Re: [dns-privacy] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic-00.txt
On 3/6/2020 6:12 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > Christian Huitema wrote: > >> We just resubmitted the DNS over QUIC draft to DPRIVE. Thanks in advance >> for the feedback! > Looks promising! I have a few comments: > > Is the ALPN "dq" or "doq"? 4.1 and 4.1.1 appear to disagree. 8.1 seems to > disagree with itself. Blame my poor editing skills, and use "doq". Sorry. > Section 4.3 (idle timeouts): it's clearly better to use QUIC's facilities > for this, but there could potentially be a conflict with DNS stateful > timeouts (RFC48490) so maybe there needs to be a bit more discussion about > how to resolve disagreements between two protocol layers. > > Section 5.4 (response size): there was a HUGE discussion about this in the > context of DoH and the consensus was to retain the 65535 byte message > size limit. DoQ should do the same. OK. > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/fpJSGWI1YtHeTFvmrS7pvB7ZnDA/ > > The EDNS payload size limit only applies to Do53 UDP and should be ignored > in other transports. OK, will fix. > Sections 5.7 and 4.3 seem to be restating the same things in different > ways. They should probably be merged into one. Will look. > > Section 5.7.1 (connection reuse): possibly also worth stating that servers > should not send responses in order. Maybe refer to RFC7766 which has > similar requirements for TCP. Will do. This is indeed the intent. > An editorial suggestion: when referring to RFCs, can you please make it > clear what the reference is about (e.g. the subject of the RFC or name of > protocol) in the paragraph containing the reference, so that readers > can understand the paragraph without having to bounce back and forth to > the references section. I just need to find the right way to do that with the markdown tools... -- Christian Huitema ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
Re: [dns-privacy] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic-00.txt
Christian Huitema wrote: > We just resubmitted the DNS over QUIC draft to DPRIVE. Thanks in advance > for the feedback! Looks promising! I have a few comments: Is the ALPN "dq" or "doq"? 4.1 and 4.1.1 appear to disagree. 8.1 seems to disagree with itself. Section 4.3 (idle timeouts): it's clearly better to use QUIC's facilities for this, but there could potentially be a conflict with DNS stateful timeouts (RFC48490) so maybe there needs to be a bit more discussion about how to resolve disagreements between two protocol layers. Section 5.4 (response size): there was a HUGE discussion about this in the context of DoH and the consensus was to retain the 65535 byte message size limit. DoQ should do the same. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/fpJSGWI1YtHeTFvmrS7pvB7ZnDA/ The EDNS payload size limit only applies to Do53 UDP and should be ignored in other transports. Sections 5.7 and 4.3 seem to be restating the same things in different ways. They should probably be merged into one. Section 5.7.1 (connection reuse): possibly also worth stating that servers should not send responses in order. Maybe refer to RFC7766 which has similar requirements for TCP. An editorial suggestion: when referring to RFCs, can you please make it clear what the reference is about (e.g. the subject of the RFC or name of protocol) in the paragraph containing the reference, so that readers can understand the paragraph without having to bounce back and forth to the references section. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/ Dover, Wight: Northwest backing west 3 to 5. Slight or moderate. Showers at first. Good. ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
[dns-privacy] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic-00.txt
We just resubmitted the DNS over QUIC draft to DPRIVE. Thanks in advance for the feedback! -- Christian Huitema Forwarded Message Subject:New Version Notification for draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic-00.txt Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 20:46:29 -0800 From: internet-dra...@ietf.org To: Christian Huitema , Sara Dickinson , Allison Mankin A new version of I-D, draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Christian Huitema and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic Revision: 00 Title: Specification of DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections Document date: 2020-03-05 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 19 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic-00 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic Abstract: This document describes the use of QUIC to provide transport privacy for DNS. The encryption provided by QUIC has similar properties to that provided by TLS, while QUIC transport eliminates the head-of- line blocking issues inherent with TCP and provides more efficient error corrections than UDP. DNS over QUIC (DoQ) has privacy properties similar to DNS over TLS (DoT) specified in RFC7858, and performance characteristics similar to classic DNS over UDP. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
