Re: [dns-privacy] Moving things along...

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Hosnieh Rafiee <ietf@rozanak.com> wrote:
> Does it mean that you want to only go with solution to change DNS protocol?
> You don't want to put any other solution in agenda which doesn't change much
> the DNS protocol  such as cga-tsige. The might be more examples.

The CGA-TSIG document itself seems to have been shopped around a large
amount, starting in 2012 -- I see it being pushed in IntArea, SAAG,
DANE, DNSOP, DNSEXT and DPRIVE.

It has been discussed in DPRIVE, but I did not get the sense that the
WG had interest in pursuing it. There were some questions / confusion
about what exactly it provides / how it works.
You did request agenda time in Dallas - we only requested a 90 minute
slot, and so can only give you 10 minutes to present and answer
questions - if the WG shows support after that we can discuss adopting
this as well....

W

>
> Best,
> Hosnieh
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dns-privacy [mailto:dns-privacy-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Warren Kumari
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:48 PM
>> To: dns-privacy@ietf.org
>> Subject: [dns-privacy] Moving things along...
>>
>> Dear DPRIVE,
>>
>> Apologies for the lack of momentum - your chairs had gotten sidetracked by
>> holidays, lots of travel, day-jobs, etc and have not been giving the WG
> the time
>> it deserves.
>>
>> Getting things moving again, we need to decide on a way forward.
>>
>> We now have 2 primary document sets under consideration:
>> A: Phillip Hallam-Baker's set:
>> DNS Privacy and Censorship: Use Cases and Requirements -
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hallambaker-dnse-02
>> Service Connection Service (SXS) -
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hallambaker-wsconnect-08
>> Private-DNS - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hallambaker-privatedns-01
>>
>> B:  The combined USC/Information Sciences, Verisign, VPN Consortium doc
>> TLS for DNS: Initiation and Performance Considerations -
> draft-hzhwm-dprive-
>> start-tls-for-dns
>>
>> We have 3 possible options here:
>> 1: Adopt Phillip's set
>> 2: Adopt the hzhwm-dprive-start-tls-for-dns doc
>> 3: Adopt both, with the understanding that one will fall by the wayside.
>>
>> I''d appreciate it if the WG can read both sets of documents, and start
>> deciding which option best meets the WG's goals.
>>
>> We expect to get the Aziz / Allison Mankin evaluation document next week,
>> which will contain ways of describing the privacy goal and helping
> evaluate
>> how well it is attained; but we can, and should, read the document sets
> before
>> that.
>>
>> W
>>
>>
>> --
>> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea
> in the
>> first place.
>> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at
>> having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants.
>>    ---maf
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dns-privacy mailing list
>> dns-privacy@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
>

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf