[dns-privacy] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dprive-edns0-padding-02: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dprive-edns0-padding-02: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to

Re: [dns-privacy] Joel Jaeggli's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-edns0-padding-02: (with DISCUSS)

Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 29, 2016, at 16:53, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > If you want warn fuzzies then say MUST NOT otherwise it is just > noise. > > You can't enforce it. Do you throw away clear text packets with > the option in the request / response? Adding it won't

Re: [dns-privacy] Joel Jaeggli's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-edns0-padding-02: (with DISCUSS)

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:40 PM joel jaeggli wrote: > On 2/29/16 1:34 PM, Shane Kerr wrote: > > Joel, > > > > At 2016-02-29 11:55:27 -0800 > > "Joel Jaeggli" wrote: > >> > >> This is just something I want to discuss, it's not an objection... > >> > >> At this

Re: [dns-privacy] Joel Jaeggli's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-edns0-padding-02: (with DISCUSS)

Joel, At 2016-02-29 11:55:27 -0800 "Joel Jaeggli" wrote: > > This is just something I want to discuss, it's not an objection... > > At this point we say: > >Implementations therefore >SHOULD avoid using this option if the DNS transport is not encrypted. > > If you

Re: [dns-privacy] Joel Jaeggli's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-edns0-padding-02: (with DISCUSS)

On 29/02/16 21:10, Barry Leiba wrote: > Is there a difference between what it says ("if the DNS transport is > not encrypted") and what you said ("in the clear")? Depends on what one means by DNS transport I guess. I don't recall whether the WG had chatted about that. > Would there be a >

Re: [dns-privacy] Joel Jaeggli's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-edns0-padding-02: (with DISCUSS)

>> At this point we say: >> >>Implementations therefore >>SHOULD avoid using this option if the DNS transport is not encrypted. >> >> If you did allow this on unencrypted dns transport this seems like it >> serves as a utility function for DNS amplification. >> >> Wouldn't it be better to