Re: [dns-privacy] Restarting the discussion of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing

Hi Paul, I reviewed the document before my vacation but did not get around to sending them earlier. Sending comments now. Will send minor comments separately. Suggest DoET or DoQTH as abbreviations for encrypted transports. Using DoET in my comments below for conciseness. Comment on

Re: [dns-privacy] revisiting ADoT design assumptions

Some of the questions need more granularity in the answers. e.g. "Do we care about the latency of A2DoT-enabled domains?" We may care on average but with the expectation that the latency/overhead of the first few queries will be amortized over the future queries. On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 12:33

Re: [dns-privacy] New draft on authenticated recursive <-> authoritative

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 9:39 PM Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 6:00 PM Puneet Sood wrote: >> >> [late to the discussion, so putting my responses here instead of as >> replies to various threads] >> >> * Use of SVCB vs TLSA for signali

Re: [dns-privacy] New draft on authenticated recursive <-> authoritative

[late to the discussion, so putting my responses here instead of as replies to various threads] * Use of SVCB vs TLSA for signaling secure transport support. Preference for SVCB since it is specifically meant to represent transport endpoints and could be extended to new transports, additional

Re: [dns-privacy] Possible use case: Opportunistic encryption for recursive to authoritative

I think this is worth doing. -Puneet On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 10:59 AM Paul Hoffman wrote: > > Greetings again. The following is a short text-based version of my slides > from last week's WG meeting. I'd like to find out if this is one of the use > cases that the WG would be interested in

Re: [dns-privacy] DoH vs DoT at IMC 2019

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 11:15 AM Vladimír Čunát wrote: > > > [...] Implementing out-of-order delivery via TLS is akin to > > (re-)implementing the stream multiplexing part of SCTP, QUIC or > > HTTP/2.0. We believe that this is one of the main reasons why > > DNS-over-TLS failed to gain

Re: [dns-privacy] DoH vs DoT at IMC 2019

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 4:58 AM Petr Špaček wrote: > > On 12. 09. 19 7:37, Rob Sayre wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:53 AM Timm Boettger > > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Rob Sayre has pointed me to this thread. I am an author of the linked > >

Re: [dns-privacy] [DNSOP] Do53 vs DoT vs DoH Page Load Performance Study at ANRW

Thanks for sharing the results of your work. It will be great to have the software available so others can run the experiments from other locations. When looking at the page load results the CDF graphs comparing the various services are very useful to see the relative performance of different

Re: [dns-privacy] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dickinson-dprive-bcp-op-00.txt

** Comments * Section 5.3.1 > If operators do offer a service that sends the ECS options upstream > they should use the shortest prefix that is operationally feasible > (NOTE: the authors believe they will be able to add a reference for > advice here soon) and ideally use a policy of