Subject: [dns-privacy] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-edns0-padding-02: (with COMMENT)

From: "Joel Jaeggli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 23:18:38 -0800

Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dprive-edns0-padding-02: 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 refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-edns0-padding/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

changing my discuss to a comment since terry and the authors have a way
forward that I am happy with and which I trust them to pursue.

was -

This is just something I want to discuss, it's not an objection...

At this point we say:

   Implementations therefore
   SHOULD avoid using this option if the DNS transport is not encrypted.

If you did allow this on unencrypted dns transport this seems like it
serves as a utility function for  DNS amplification.

Wouldn't it be better to say MUST NOT?

e.g. this is exclusively for use with TLS / DTLS supporting  sessions?