IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] meeting hum: should the IETF take up this work?

Thomas Peterson <nosretep.samoht@gmail.com> Wed, 31 July 2019 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <nosretep.samoht@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 295CD1202FC for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H94gaV5AvNWU for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42e.google.com (mail-wr1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4C9E1202B5 for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id n9so70426035wru.0 for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2xqH+sZ+c/6qGuB7HzwujgEBbo36540YcRqwY9JMKog=; b=kNI/lneOMsVNmJL1yRH5w8wkDWT1jnJEfCeJp/FrCF6a2PHgiB8hV5A++TI7IVdwrJ i7B99GCrfqQ0a1j/wuSo23M6Z5utJ9zBQVVb5Mu5zHHzEgrZGEQvHYBiZaYG5evmkt7p dRJVr6nN9OC44XPpY4F5uPEZvWE8sp+utr3+DFkIiMMdzy87sxlJQz11Qy+SGjzIcrVZ 6S+YMIiEprpOxBUzqfWH3EjgG0dWFq8PgbcIBmHUxDFnmDGR5XdikHSv6XcXN6sPp0rU JXTEkCzc/S63pW4b3yzzM4o26xG2Vkxy639G9pHh1F2jL95tqH03nIeDSy5BZx8Ktp6n HbaA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2xqH+sZ+c/6qGuB7HzwujgEBbo36540YcRqwY9JMKog=; b=t1EpBAtf3l9QbGx/NvQH1WShCo1TumOMs8t+WLT4FN4B5VZMRKtX8uGVeblzAJi71W TFMTQJCaFUT1o3NUJNVhmTZT55msfulE092mwWBxe1+5s8z3Kb8fr4P5eqX/ZLRdMzGU GD7+QIYlUx/lcxDGBw7Xa9ErNeKIUt3mzLmxYKawNIy/CDYMTMzGdWR2XKogMTAaVVqG gJ3HZWxBR9e9gbZjkqyNkOUenasX294Xpi748h/R46/x+MusNHG63WseO3IGx5z3fFgs n39fi4+vQdjKvlSiae8lr30ALdS2To/51tkNUiR5+giaGqRo0dy/vagONXqKUjdhBJ7s gHVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWGve6s8GLnvW8hGGHvRDLeb4rxeMxZVb9+LRU9yKcmKlLRjh4M U/xTpAkQ5/JCiYw43EDXlX7U/80R8M8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxYyJ7R71yHUwiEUDXUpkvTRlkTRdyEg3xQ1xD0fVlDmoUY9mHoptDIBEjkig82d1iER3gLHw==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:efd2:: with SMTP id i18mr132986442wrp.145.1564589549965; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ROADKILL.local ([132.185.158.35]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v65sm77345856wme.31.2019.07.31.09.12.28 for <add@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
To: add@ietf.org
References: <CAChr6Sx9TEt6CMzRRrdb-HwT_k987oW=4yF1FCbDF17zkaE2Vg@mail.gmail.com> <AAEA003A-58DB-4FEE-81B2-BBFE9BBB2A37@rfc1035.com> <CAChr6SwA+HM4u5-xpUxQXPH8G8k7sfm6AETJJ019HE=bsq+OXA@mail.gmail.com> <8F094057-DFBC-4732-9DA4-BE46E7914C8A@rfc1035.com> <20190724165951.GB29051@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <821B448B-F7EA-46A5-837D-DA0E8C60643A@open-xchange.com> <d653d422-4a71-9fab-fd2e-b8ddaa476f91@nostrum.com> <488E2CE0-73D5-4B9E-A5AD-28FDCB95ED2A@cable.comcast.com> <CABcZeBPdf5Ce0W2y09ff2eF8yL37KLK4uUoeYs=7+YPMEtVnhg@mail.gmail.com> <FB0D3A9A-BE96-45CF-AD0F-E63ADEB7F97A@telefonica.com> <CAMOjQcE1QyXLm0Jc9nE7V0Z=MESpLdcgptHwLAAYfU6BOdAt8Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Thomas Peterson <nosretep.samoht@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2e16aa6d-748b-f44a-3b1c-0b656e2195ab@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:12:28 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:69.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/69.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMOjQcE1QyXLm0Jc9nE7V0Z=MESpLdcgptHwLAAYfU6BOdAt8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/2TPGRdmQumEmZYtf78OtqYVpvCs>
Subject: Re: [Add] meeting hum: should the IETF take up this work?
X-BeenThere: add@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <add.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/>
List-Post: <mailto:add@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:12:33 -0000

I agree, and have been discussing the idea off-list of having a document 
that also covers DNS trust anchors and their role, particularly when the 
network is providing DoT/DoH services, and the considerations where 
clients need a Do53 bootstrap. Maybe it would make sense to cover all of 
these points in a single informational document, as I don't believe such 
considerations belong in a BCP?

Regards

On 31/07/2019 16:58, Eric Orth wrote:
> privacy mitigations and considerations for DoH/DoT/etc may be useful to 
> document in an Informational or BCP

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email