> -----Original Message----- > From: Ilari Liusvaara [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 4:41 PM > To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) > Cc: Simon Josefsson; Watson Ladd; [email protected]; Warren Kumari > Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Call for Adoptions on the 3 documents. > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:59:53AM +0000, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) > wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dns-privacy [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > > Ilari Liusvaara > > > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 3:25 PM > > > To: Simon Josefsson > > > Cc: Watson Ladd; [email protected]; Warren Kumari > > > Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Call for Adoptions on the 3 documents. > > > > > > - Does DNS-over-DTLS need some sort of channel identifier in queries > > > (taking place of the 5-tuple)? To deal with things like client IP > > > address/portrange changes or client socket being dropped[1]. > > > > (D)TLS supports session resumption without server side state > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5077 > > It is still 1RTT. > > Also, it occurs to me that if there is NAT with non-sticky behaviour with UDP > DNS (UDP DNS might very well be special-cased), things are not going to work > at all without channel identifier (because the ports change constantly).
DTLS-SRTP over UDP to secure media is already deployed. -Tiru > > Dunno if such middleboxes exist, or if they exist, how common those are. > > > -Ilari _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
