IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com> Thu, 11 May 2017 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <sara@sinodun.com>
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 1E8FA12EC25; Thu, 11 May 2017 05:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PLiEHmrFsDK0; Thu, 11 May 2017 05:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balrog.mythic-beasts.com (balrog.mythic-beasts.com [46.235.227.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4869812EC49; Thu, 11 May 2017 05:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2a02:8010:6126:0:bc7d:946c:833c:205e] (port=57039) by balrog.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <sara@sinodun.com>) id 1d8mpG-0002kW-Hb; Thu, 11 May 2017 13:04:10 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com>
In-Reply-To: <149436978593.19294.10256470803161992800.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 13:04:08 +0100
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles@ietf.org, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dprive-chairs@ietf.org, dns-privacy@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <181B9399-EB5C-43CC-B21C-4A6CE77391DF@sinodun.com>
References: <149436978593.19294.10256470803161992800.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: -28
X-Mythic-Debug: State = no_sa; Score =
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/DqlruSlmvBg9v-RzJZ0ufaNVKV4>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 11 May 2017 12:06:42 -0000

> On 9 May 2017, at 23:43, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (I just updated both my DISCUSS and my comment section.)
> 
> I would like to ballot YES on this document, but I would like to discuss
> the following:
> 
> Sorry for being DownRef police, but RFC 7918 is clearly Normative
> (because there is a SHOULD level requirement), but it is listed as
> Informative reference.

I think that is a hangover from when it was referenced as a I-D

> It would be a DownRef once it is made Normative,
> unless the procedure from RFC 8067 is used. Is RFC 7918 a suitable
> DownRef? Is it widely implemented?

I just checked the early versions of the document and they actually included a note at the end of section 12 which has since been removed:

“ [NOTE: The references to (works in progress) should be upgraded to
   MUST's if those references become RFC's prior to publication of this
   document.]

At the time both RFC7918 and RFC7924 were still I-Ds. With that in mind:

- Since RFC7918 is only Informational would it make more sense to use MAY and leave it as an informative reference. 

- But change the recommendation regarding RFC7924 to be a MUST and make that Normative (it is currently only informative).

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I am agreeing with Ekr comments.

OK,  noted. 

> I am also agreeing on first and last
> Mirja's comment.

I haven’t seen a review from Mirja - was there one I missed?

> Section on future DHCP extension is a bit "hand-wavy". Is any work on
> this planned?

There was some debate about including this at all given that to my knowledge there is no current work on this, but IIRC in the end it was felt that something should be said on it (however hand-wavy).  I see Suresh raised this point too so I will look at the document he referenced and respond separately on that. 

Regards

Sara.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email