Subject: [dns-privacy] New revision of the EDNS(0) "Padding" Draft

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:46:59 +0200

Hi,

I've submitted an updated version of the EDNS(0) "Padding" draft, see below
for the original announcement. Even though this is not a working group
document, I'm asking the Chairs for further direction on this - i
understand that we discussed the option of "Individual submission - AD
sponsored" for this in Prague?

Of course, feedback and reviews are greatly appreciated.

thanks,
Alex

----
A new version of I-D, draft-mayrhofer-edns0-padding-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Alexander Mayrhofer and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-mayrhofer-edns0-padding
Revision:       01
Title:          The EDNS(0) Padding Option
Document date:  2015-08-14
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          5
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mayrhofer-edns0-padding-01.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mayrhofer-edns0-padding/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mayrhofer-edns0-padding-01
Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-mayrhofer-edns0-padding-01

Abstract:
   This document specifies the EDNS(0) 'Padding' option, which allows
   DNS clients and servers to pad request and response messages by a
   variable number of octets.

---

From: Shane Kerr <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:16:18 +0000

Alex,

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:46:59 +0200

> Of course, feedback and reviews are greatly appreciated.

IIRC this seemed completely uncontroversial. :)

Was there an idea to make a separate document with some recommendations
as to how to actually *use* this, or is the idea just to add this to
the toolbox for protocol implementations?

Cheers,

--
Shane

---

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:22:09 +0000

Shane,

> IIRC this seemed completely uncontroversial. :)

Thanks. There were some comments whether padding at a different layer would be more appropriate, but - again - this would be subject to the "using protocol".
 
> the toolbox for protocol implementations?

The idea was to have separate drafts for this. One draft creating the "tool", but not specifying how to use it, and then subsequent draft(s) specifying how this should be used (such as the DTLS / TLS drafts?)

Alex