IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] Proposed charter and BoF request for IETF 106

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Wed, 09 October 2019 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.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 66420120B1D for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 eGQwEx5GKweZ for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (smtp.v6.rfc1035.com [IPv6:2001:4b10:100:7::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEE7F120B1F for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gromit.rfc1035.com (gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C597242141F; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 19:16:09 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFpG3gch-mgJJMO1rEg61PhYNKeKYiJwz4NTQ3QDbEb=WNkyQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 20:16:08 +0100
Cc: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, ADD Mailing list <add@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D6D4836A-C426-491D-AAC4-D1F3323D6AB8@rfc1035.com>
References: <CALaySJLxXVuHQNfTnaeKZ_R9xtBYWfbta+A1bWcE-ZQZwd3VZg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMkAFZW9mWjw92v+OR0Fa8ed+P80yc78eY07hCpsCNY6Q@mail.gmail.com> <1556423899.28427.1570640191209@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <CABcZeBNyRDqnVL68aXny=Ht69NjahmS4zRsnYizO53M--rhM5g@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1910091313590.2297@bofh.nohats.ca> <CAFpG3gch-mgJJMO1rEg61PhYNKeKYiJwz4NTQ3QDbEb=WNkyQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: tirumal reddy <kondtir@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/dLNpE-a0pMW55tIvYZylHVYLJB0>
Subject: Re: [Add] Proposed charter and BoF request for IETF 106
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, 09 Oct 2019 19:16:31 -0000


> On 9 Oct 2019, at 19:04, tirumal reddy <kondtir@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> DHCP is not a secure way to discover the local DoT/DoH server.

That may well be true. However that debate belongs on another thread and maybe even another list.

I thought we were meant to be discussing the proposed charter for a new WG and a possible BoF in Singapore. Could we please focus on that?

Debating the detail of DHCP/discovery methods seems to be off-topic for the matter at hand. Though these could well be the basis of new work if and when the ABCD is formed.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email