Re: [dns-privacy] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-11

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Mon, 28 August 2023 11:46 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1976FC1516E3 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.091, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=innovationslab-net.20221208.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uZ0pBjMS-BZl for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x830.google.com (mail-qt1-x830.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A035AC151553 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x830.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-410994a240aso20858251cf.1 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=innovationslab-net.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1693223176; x=1693827976; h=in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to:content-language:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=j8owjPtaOs5puX0JpLkbJP+yke2c3gDkoxqKYlkIsCc=; b=pu2mIJg7yyx3aNv3mIU8EsttuIPZzp0+BZpWTR5DM2UqXsyU2rVXML6muRwbLW/2qN BmYjIelAE2DYI28RUtnpe06/4X4UVny/+Wc+8NY9OfDR/biWQhiR1iJ5d4vXzUTErVRb nZeF/HrlNDpY8T8ed2OsIlm7rO1+Yn/o8FNJN3qm7x9D21z1sEcvxufFY2vUULXFItk7 nNlrMNJ2cqbxaCcVtkCYmBc1ba6nqfI1Wo4aztKT+Vs5Dw8ezQptzzZiewsZgUvwIwig E5R//RzOiRj1OPmKgh23cvmK3JUkijlTXfh+MwQGg8Mz2kOmShR26iZqXMnic/s2Poxl gtkA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1693223176; x=1693827976; h=in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to:content-language:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=j8owjPtaOs5puX0JpLkbJP+yke2c3gDkoxqKYlkIsCc=; b=M9ZXXBhzgWbTHsA0CfXVwGVCw2cmmsGzhnz08CCjG8ICcauysnKbbVeYrp8OBAveZx 2v7LIw9D/WMqLVrxnej3Bc7S1Qk3FrHCD5xgTjN2PgG2Bl/saZoytMgKzxifkbrVMKQz kyB9d5VoRwChDUCzkGLXrDSh2TqNyC4P52C1l7SD/ZLpW8s5AqjYYlNhOBzhT8hsePwe mKJt4MTKFRxUAxVGb/b45nr87BL5Hv4z8PriEpF3VV7UU+xCXsF4MhtyGloPh4un12du qW0mdtJCHAA/ElD4YHkIk1TcHIkl9L0OCukNqadbnT7J0FEXuexxaeaDj2S7MdV7GZg7 ScVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxGNg6lFc46JfOBMQOZir3lxqtRIwP/J+/JQkrm04h/BYW3Np+u NUTbhcTTaHEE3Yk2DSnE39psVw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFo58wT97mAhEx78IQKGY6YK6k2C9MRw7TnR7bATq7JT0e3/rMzJ6mBsCBO7xbkz2gYEN1c9A==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:48b:b0:412:2b1b:2d53 with SMTP id p11-20020a05622a048b00b004122b1b2d53mr3117714qtx.8.1693223176547; Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] ([172.59.113.32]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x11-20020ac87ecb000000b004108bebd1fcsm2240207qtj.24.2023.08.28.04.46.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c1cb139f-24d9-7fbf-5ef3-5e1bda56181b@innovationslab.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 07:46:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>, ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing.all@ietf.org
References: <169305778631.51777.3452361747442761670@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
In-Reply-To: <169305778631.51777.3452361747442761670@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------0HHUanx7EuK3YU0l00UKwKMA"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/7pAJRww6agG72DNDC67RX4EBC2Q>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-11
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Addition of privacy to the DNS protocol <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: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 11:46:23 -0000

Dhruv,
      Thanks for the comments. The authors will address these comments 
and get back to you with any follow-ups.

Regards,
Brian

On 8/26/23 9:49 AM, Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
> Review result: Has Nits
> 
> # OPSDIR review of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-11
> 
> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
> comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
> the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in the last-call may be
> included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs
> should treat these comments just like any other last-call comments.
> 
> The document is clear and well-written. The motivation is described well. The
> guiance is clear. I have some minor comments and nits.
> 
> ## Minor
> 
> - Section 4.6.1, in the below text, does "persistence" play no role when you
> say "regardless of how long in the past that was"?
> ~~~~
>     *  E-status[X] is success, and (T0 - E-last-response[X]) <
>        persistence
> 
>     This indicates that one successful connection to a server that the
>     client then closed cleanly would result in the client not sending the
>     next query over Do53, regardless of how long in the past that was.
> ~~~~
> 
> - Section 4.6.5, in the text "if Q is not present in any other *-queries[X] or
> in Do53-queries[X]", does Do53-queries not part of *-queries? If this is not
> true perhaps please explain early on what *-queries mean. (Note there are other
> instances of this as well)
> 
> - Section 6.2, suggest to state clearly why modeling the probability is listed
> under privacy consideration. This is not clear from the current text.
> 
> - Appendix A, any reason not to follow RFC 7942?
> 
> - Appendix B, considering expanding this more on how would you judge this
> experiment to be a success and perhaps move to standards track?
> 
> ## Nits
> 
> - Abstract, shouldnt "underlying transport" be "underlying encrypted transport"?
> 
> - Section 1.2, add DoH
> 
> - For the quotes in Section 2.2
>      - It is better to state the RFCs where these quotes originate.
>      - You could also use visual cues via blockquotes
> 
> - Section 3, you expand DoT and DoQ here but, they have already been used
> without expansion in 2.2
> 
> - Section 4, s/in failed resolutions or significant delay/in failed resolutions
> or significant delays/
> 
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
> 
>