Haberman; dns-privacy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Resolver to authoritative discussion guidance
[snip intro].
I am interested in the "no resolver" aspect. The privacy argument for
using encrypted to a recursive resolver is that the stub's queries get
mixed into an "anonym
On 8/31/2018 7:22 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> All,
> The conversations around this topic have gone silent. Are there
> other perspectives that we need to understand?
>
> Tim and I are discussing an interim in September to get some
> focused discussion on requirements, issues, and
All,
The conversations around this topic have gone silent. Are there
other perspectives that we need to understand?
Tim and I are discussing an interim in September to get some
focused discussion on requirements, issues, and gating factors. Please
continue to raise items that you think
Am 01.08.2018 um 16:47 schrieb Paul Hoffman:
> So, with padding policy now in the RFC Editor's queue, it would be grand if
> the WG could put more energy into resolver-to-authoritative. The chairs
> started a bunch of topic-specific threads that got a bit of response, but
> then silence
So, with padding policy now in the RFC Editor's queue, it would be grand
if the WG could put more energy into resolver-to-authoritative. The
chairs started a bunch of topic-specific threads that got a bit of
response, but then silence fell. I care a lot about this, and hope
others do as well.
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
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
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
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
