Re: [dns-privacy] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles-09: (with DISCUSS)

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 08:43:15PM -0700,
 Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]> wrote 
 a message of 37 lines which said:

> I do have a concern regarding section 7.3 as it is not clear what
> really is being requested on the DHCP front here. While using an IP
> address or an FQDN are generally both possible choices while
> providing configuration options using DHCP, the use of FQDNs for
> acquiring trusted DNS servers seems problematic. We have spent a
> great deal of effort writing up some of the potential issues in
> Section 8 of RFC7227.

It seems there was no reply to this DISCUSS? If so, let me give my
opinion: I disagree with the DISCUSS. Section 7.3 is just here to lay
down some paths toward a future and possible DHCP extension. It does
not attempt to standardize one. It does not request anything from the
current DHCP servers.

Mentioning section 8 of RFC 7227 could help, but this section does not
discuss the DNS-specific issues (such as the fact we need both IP
address and name of the DNS resolver, which RFC 7227 frame it as an
exclusive choice).

Possible solution if it is absolutely necessary to clear the DISCUSS:
moving section 7.3 to an appendix to make clear it is not part of the
DNS-over-TLS profiles definition.