Hi folks,
> Basically, one of the reasons the DNS protocol has been so robust is
> because of the caching behavior. It greatly reduces traffic, greatly
> speeds up lookups.
Just want to provide some numbers on lookups RTT.
On experiment 1800 (tab 1 at
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:33 PM Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 4:05 PM Christopher Wood
> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2018, 12:29 PM -0800, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
>> , wrote:
>>
>> On Fri 2018-12-14 11:47:58 -0800, Christopher Wood wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2018, 10:47 AM -0800,
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 4:05 PM Christopher Wood <
christopherwoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2018, 12:29 PM -0800, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <
> d...@fifthhorseman.net>, wrote:
>
> On Fri 2018-12-14 11:47:58 -0800, Christopher Wood wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2018, 10:47 AM -0800, Wes Hardaker ,
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
> I hope Wes will answer this question on his own
Basically, one of the reasons the DNS protocol has been so robust is
because of the caching behavior. It greatly reduces traffic, greatly
speeds up lookups. Turning off caching would disable much of this
critical
On Dec 14, 2018, 12:29 PM -0800, Daniel Kahn Gillmor ,
wrote:
> On Fri 2018-12-14 11:47:58 -0800, Christopher Wood wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 2018, 10:47 AM -0800, Wes Hardaker , wrote:
> > > [And, no, we shouldn't go down the road of "privacy requires you disable
> > > the cache"]
> >
> > Would you
On Fri 2018-12-14 11:47:58 -0800, Christopher Wood wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2018, 10:47 AM -0800, Wes Hardaker , wrote:
>> [And, no, we shouldn't go down the road of "privacy requires you disable
>> the cache"]
>
> Would you mind elaborating on this comment? As you observe, caches are
> harmful to
On Dec 14, 2018, 10:47 AM -0800, Wes Hardaker , wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
>
> > I have *not* done any analysis of the larger, less-corner-y cases to
> > see whether there's a strong argument for or against treating data
> > that came in under confidential cover differently once it's in
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
> I have *not* done any analysis of the larger, less-corner-y cases to
> see whether there's a strong argument for or against treating data
> that came in under confidential cover differently once it's in the
> cache.
Technically, it's near impossible to completely
Hi Daniel
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 02:32:41PM -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> The degenerate scenario i'd painted on the call was:
>
> * consider a DPRIVE-capable DNS resolver; for whatever reason, only a
>single request has been made to it since it booted.
>
> * a new cleartext
Hi Mukund--
On Tue 2018-12-11 11:13:39 +0530, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> During last night's meeting, there was talk about use of a split-cache -
> one with answers learned from plain transports and another with answers
> learned via secure transports.
I think i was the one that mentioned that
10 matches
Mail list logo
