Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Attempts to clarify. #4

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Feb 23, 2021
Merged

Attempts to clarify. #4

merged 1 commit into from Feb 23, 2021

Conversation

chris-wood
Copy link
Collaborator

And add HSTS proposal.

@chris-wood chris-wood requested a review from ekr February 23, 2021 16:18
name: David Schinazi
organization: Google LLC
email: dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oops.

SHOULD try all of them before declaring failure.
SHOULD try all of them before declaring failure. An implementation
MUST NOT consider an answer authentic unless it is either signed
via DNSSEC or received over an encrypted transport.
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this DNSSEC point is right, because the text above would require encrypted transport.

authoritative for their own name SHOULD send SVCB glue records
in the additional data section so that they can be properly cached,
and the TTL for these SVCB records SHOULD match that of the
corresponding NS records in the same RRset.
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice

in {{overview}}, cannot assume the NS answer is authentic. However,
given the number of top-level domain servers, resolvers may use an
HSTS-like mechanism for determining whether which top-level servers
support encrypted transports.
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm gonna merge this, but I don't think it's quite right. Will fix it in a followup PR.

@ekr ekr merged commit 72d94c3 into main Feb 23, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants