Re: [dns-privacy] draft-ietf-dprive-phase2-requirements: The User Perspective and Use Cases

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dns-privacy <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Brian
> Haberman
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 7:20 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] draft-ietf-dprive-phase2-
> requirements: The User Perspective and Use Cases
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
> is safe.
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> On 3/23/21 11:26 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>
> >> >From the pure user perspective, do they even know that their "DNS
> >> server" is an intermediary?
> >
> > [SAH] For most people, probably not.
> >
> >> What phase 2 requirement can be derived from the above?
> >
> > [SAH] There isn't one. This text appears in the Appendix, which (I believe)
> helps set the context for the requirements that appear in the sections that
> precede it without including additional requirements. If there's an intention
> to include requirements in Section 9, it might help to call it something other
> than "Appendix", to move it up higher in the document, and to think about
> where normative language is needed. My preference is to leave it where it
> is, use it to provide background information, and not include normative
> language.
>
> Sorry, I didn't word my question clearly enough. I agree that there shouldn't
> be requirements in the appendix. It does serve the purpose of providing
> context, but does not appear to have a direct link to any requirements that
> have been documented. So, my question is does this context lead to any
> specific requirement that should be captured in this document?

[SAH] I don't think it does, and that's just as important to recognize as the other perspectives that appear in the appendix that might lead to a specific requirement. Right now, the draft leaves the question about requirements derived from the user's perspective open. I'm suggesting that we modify that text and note that the user's perspective does not introduce requirements.

Scott