Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Willem Toorop <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 16:56:48 +0100

Op 16-12-2020 om 19:55 schreef Martin Duke via Datatracker:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> It seems to me the mechanisms in Section 5 would be simplified by using some
> the reserved bit to have an identifier for the secret.

Thanks Martin for the suggestion,

We actually considered this idea ourselves in an early stage of the
document, but have rejected it, because it would require the identifier
to be derived from the Server Secret somehow so that all servers in the
anycast set associate the id with the same secret. Also, there is almost
always just 1 Server Secret. Only when a Server Secret is updated (which
should takes a limited amount of time), using an identifier for the
Server Secret would be slightly more efficient.

Cheers,
-- Willem

> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

---

From: Martin Duke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:11:19 -0800

Fair enough, thanks.