Re: [dispatch] [Ext] Re: New proposed work: DNS over HTTPS

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sat, 17 June 2017 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10EA5129B55 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jun 2017 11:22:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 ZZALAevh2PWy for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jun 2017 11:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBBF7129A97 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Jun 2017 11:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45A23BE50; Sat, 17 Jun 2017 19:22:48 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qDVyFi9ac7ao; Sat, 17 Jun 2017 19:22:47 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.244.2.100] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D0EBBE4D; Sat, 17 Jun 2017 19:22:46 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1497723767; bh=oEi2WBYV11SAvKgxeoZ7ECxuCgXfPgxExrg//YeiU9U=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Kp99Fr+fz5Nsnlms7ygvOVO5s0kkQKMN1zSMEM6fjznIT4ZTruufuERZk/jK3oCdu clMaHvosdC7ZQLXzuz/vnnk5UmqMytC7PCMSgMTZuBlxcofYm4agHMFklYt4QXARW/ WOhp4vWtm26S6a1/geUMIoHkAhfk1XVBnEfQOKCM=
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
Cc: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
References: <52CA02A7-705D-4D5E-AC1D-FB0B02BB4305@icann.org> <c47ec331-fabd-a8ae-45d4-2eda5ed482c6@cs.tcd.ie> <474023DC-BDEA-4F48-B23E-BA29B2B9645A@icann.org>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <31f72b02-9dfb-ad0c-e40a-abf588ae9486@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2017 19:22:45 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <474023DC-BDEA-4F48-B23E-BA29B2B9645A@icann.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ccsOMVviQrNOU2E5HGtbu9DLgAVeni05K"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/45zzi4LcEw6GOF0vNMxLvBbn1h0>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] [Ext] Re: New proposed work: DNS over HTTPS
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2017 18:22:53 -0000


On 17/06/17 18:43, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2017, at 5:33 AM, Stephen Farrell
> <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>> So if such analysis is part of the planned work, then I'd be happy
>> to support progressing it. If not... not.
> 
> It wasn't part of the planned work because we thought we dealt with
> the issue you reported. It is now part of the planned work because it
> appears we undershot. This kind of consideration should definitely be
> discussed in the document.

Ack. So long as the analysis is done and appropriately
documented, then I'd be fine. I'm not sure myself how
much text that'd result in for this document - I guess
that'll depend on the results found.

S.

> 
> --Paul
>