[dns-privacy] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with COMMENT)

Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 23 April 2021 20:54 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C38AB3A0B9F; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls@ietf.org, dprive-chairs@ietf.org, dns-privacy@ietf.org, tjw.ietf@gmail.com, tjw.ietf@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.28.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <161921129877.20343.10624609154750488813@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:54:58 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/0_vssv8skw9fl5XUzy0-VxgWBCk>
Subject: [dns-privacy] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: <dns-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dns-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:dns-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 20:54:59 -0000

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- Please explicitly state that, IIUC, these XoT connections use the DoT ALPN.

- There ought to be a warning somewhere that mTLS verifies that the CA has
verified identity, while IP ACLs merely prove that the bearer can observe the
path to the address. The former is much stronger than the latter, unless there
are more mechanisms built into the ACL than are obvious from the text here.

- Please educate me: from my skim of the RFCs AXFR has message IDs, but IFXR
does not. So how would a client demux IFXR responses?