Hi!
Martine Lenders, here, one of the co-authors of the draft.
Indeed, as Carsten already stated: Using OSCORE is one of our main use
cases, using a compressed format for DNS messages is another.
We implemented both DNS over DTLS and DNS over CoAP (DoC), including the
variants DNS over CoAPS
Hi,
Sorry for the late reply, I was away from any keyboard for the past two
weeks.
I think there might be a misunderstanding regarding the CNAME behavior,
due to some poor wording in our draft: The CNAMEs should, of course,
only be resolved in such a way, if the queried record was an A or AA
compact DNS responses, not coupled to DoC. For example, such
compactification might be even more relevant to UDP Do53 than to DoC.
--Ben
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 7:30 AM Martine Sophie Lenders
wrote:
Hi,
Sorry for the late reply, I was away from any keyboard for the
past two
-core-dns-over-coap/01/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lenders-dns-cns/
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 4:32 AM Martine Sophie Lenders
mailto:m.lend...@fu-berlin.de>> wrote:
Hi Ben, Hi Carsten,
thanks for your suggestions, Ben! It seems a good idea to clarify
optio
ion about what is optional
in CNAME handling: there is no situation in which a stub resolver will
chase a CNAME chain. That is always the recursive resolver's job.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 2:25 PM Martine Sophie Lenders
mailto:m.lend...@fu-berlin.de>> wrote:
Hi!
Am 21.09.22 um
Hi!
we, the authors of draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap, are planning to
present on DNS over CoAP at the next core interim (and at IETF 117) again.
In preparation for that, there are still some things to do and discuss
ahead:
Discussions on 'ALPN "coap" for DTLS' [1] and 'Using SVCB with
OSCO
Hi Ben,
On 23.06.23 22:23, Ben Schwartz wrote:
I think it would be helpful if this document were more explicit about
its motivation. In my view, the underlying motivation for this draft is
to enable seamless management of DNS service within a CoAP-centered
deployment, by sharing key distribut
FYI
Forwarded Message
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-04.txt
Resent-From: martine.lend...@tu-dresden.de
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:47:01 +
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
To: Thomas C. Schmidt , Cenk Gündoğan
, Christian Amsüss ,
Matthias
FYI
Forwarded Message
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-lenders-dns-cbor-05.txt
Resent-From: martine.lend...@tu-dresden.de
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:55:59 +
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
To: Thomas C. Schmidt , Matthias Waehlisch
, Carsten Bormann ,
Martine Le
Hi!
This morning I presented two drafts in DNSOP:
- https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap/, DNS
over CoAP (currently discussed in core WG), and
- https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lenders-dns-cbor/, CBOR of DNS
Messages (currently discussed in cbor WG)
We would
Hi Ben, hi Jerry,
On 10.11.23 22:55, Ben Schwartz wrote:
My point was not really related to EDNS.
My main point is that the last time someone attempted to write a new
format for DNS messages in DNSOP, it ended up in the Independent Stream,
because standardizing these things isn't easy. There
Hi Jerry,
On 16.11.23 13:36, Jerry Lundström wrote:
Hi Martine,
On 11/16/23 11:51, Martine Sophie Lenders wrote:
Regarding DNSSEC: We discussed this in the context of our research
project already, and there exists a rough, private draft for an
extension for the CBOR format. We still need
Hi Med,
On 29.07.24 13:56, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Hi Carsten, all,
There is a mismatch between what is claimed in the abstract/into vs.
core documents. Concretely, when reading “This document specifies the
usage of Service Parameters..” or “This document specifies which
informat
Hi Vint,
are you aware about [1]? With OSCORE [2] and EDHOC [3] it pretty much
aligns with your idea, as far as I can see, and would also provide you
with a key exchange mechanism for free.
Best
Martine
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap/
[2] https://www.rfc-e
14 matches
Mail list logo
