Hello Ben,
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 12:32 AM, Ben Schwartz wrote:
> Hey, I think there's been a misunderstanding here. Currently, Android
> master (and Android P beta) is padding to 128:
> https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/refs/heads/master/libc/dns/include/resolv_params.h#39
A new version (-06) has been submitted for draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-06.txt
Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the DNS PRIVate Exchange WG of the IETF.
Title : Padding Policy for EDNS(0)
Author : Alexander Mayrhofer
Filename:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 02:49:47PM +0200, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:
> Benjamin,
>
> thanks for the review. Comments inline:
Also inline.
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:38 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> >
Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-06: No Objection
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
Also
If you feel the chairs are missing some aspect of this, please speak up and
let's make sure those are covered.
thanks
Tim
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 2:10 PM, Brian Haberman
wrote:
> All,
> The chairs would like to get the WG discussion started on exploring
> privacy solutions for
This thread is for discussion of the 2nd-level server operator
perspective of DNS privacy between the recursive resolver and
authoritative servers.
- Focus on *what* is needed.
- Avoid *how* to achieve it.
- Consider both ends of DNS the exchange.
- Scenarios will frame the
This thread is for discussion of the recursive resolver operator
perspective of DNS privacy between the recursive resolver and
authoritative servers.
- Focus on *what* is needed.
- Avoid *how* to achieve it.
- Consider both ends of DNS the exchange.
- Scenarios will frame the
This thread is for discussion of the 2nd-level server operator
perspective of DNS privacy between the recursive resolver and
authoritative servers.
- Focus on *what* is needed.
- Avoid *how* to achieve it.
- Consider both ends of DNS the exchange.
- Scenarios will frame the
All,
The chairs would like to get the WG discussion started on exploring
privacy solutions for recursive resolver to/from authoritative server
exchanges. To start, we want to focus on *use cases and requirements*.
In our view, the WG needs to consider the:
- User perspective
-
Jim
We're not ignoring TLD operators. But the TLD operator space is not 100%
technical, and we feel that the work done with the SLD space will be
applicable to the TLD space.
We also feel that working on the TLD resolver issue will rathole thinking
into non-technical issues.
If you think this is
This thread is for discussion of the recursive resolver operator
perspective of DNS privacy between the recursive resolver and
authoritative servers.
- Focus on *what* is needed.
- Avoid *how* to achieve it.
- Consider both ends of DNS the exchange.
- Scenarios will frame the
From: dns-privacy On Behalf Of Tim Wicinski
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 3:01 PM
To: Jim Reid
Cc: Brian Haberman ; dns-privacy@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] Resolver to authoritative discussion
guidance
Jim
We're not ignoring TLD operators. But the TLD operator space is
OK, I'll chat with Brian since he's in charge of sending those emails for
now, and go there.
Tim
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
> On 19 Jul 2018, at 21:17, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> >
> > For example, Verisign has .com which is quite large. My Employer has
> domains at the
From: Tim Wicinski
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 4:47 PM
To: Jim Reid
Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott ; br...@innovationslab.net;
dns-privacy@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] Resolver to authoritative discussion
guidance
OK, I'll chat with Brian since he's in charge of sending those
All,
The chairs would like to get the WG discussion started on exploring
privacy solutions for recursive resolver to/from authoritative server
exchanges. To start, we want to focus on *use cases and requirements*.
In our view, the WG needs to consider the:
- User perspective
-
This thread is for discussion of the *LD server operator perspective of
DNS privacy between the recursive resolver and authoritative servers.
- Focus on *what* is needed.
- Avoid *how* to achieve it.
- Consider both ends of DNS the exchange.
- Scenarios will frame the discussion.
On 19 Jul 2018, at 21:17, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> For example, Verisign has .com which is quite large. My Employer has domains
> at the SLD issue that 'currently' has > 100MM records.
>
> Are the difference serving records vs serving delegations?
I doubt response sizes will be markedly
18 matches
Mail list logo
