Re: [dns-privacy] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-03.txt> (DNS Privacy Considerations) to Informational RFC

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 23 January 2020 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80EA8120832; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:11:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EQGlASfaKpFN; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:11:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97DAE1208A6; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:11:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 00NEBdW4022206 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:11:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1579788712; x=1579875112;; bh=dLQrptoda76G2ZRzluY6tvEKKnqDHuCMNbHE/cf1iME=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=YEvZuxGUW97/w9IkWfRLrYGN2YHC6tx365oPVvZNmYFPYCaQIPWryV5DRWmpwrXMZ 1DLAw/ufLMVImKXPRyQVIXniaG++FJ7aF7maivtwaq4fO/tZ7NOSjFK7qo7N8pDRL4 zy4dArAKuIjw83GPSc5rXtS58RS3OPwZ/PlfkrHs=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:11:08 -0800
To: Sara Dickinson <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
Cc: DNS Privacy Working Group <>, Brian Haberman <>,,
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-03.txt> (DNS Privacy Considerations) to Informational RFC
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:11:58 -0000

Dear Sara,
At 05:15 AM 23-01-2020, Sara Dickinson wrote:
> > Section 3.2 discusses what a user does and use a DNS query 
> related to email as an example.  Is the MUA expected to validated 
> the MX RR or is it the role of the MSA?
>I think questions of validation are out of scope for this draft.

Apologies for not explaining this correctly.  The draft is described 
as a document about the use of DNS.  Section 3.2 has the following: 
"It gives information about what the user does ("What are the MX 
records of" means he probably wants to send email to 
someone at ..."  My question was about that DNS 
query.  Could you or the WG Chairs please explain why the question 
which I asked is out of scope for this draft?

>Looking back, this text was introduced into the original I-D before 
>RFC7624 was published and wasn't updated. Suggest:
>OLD: The IAB privacy and security program also have a work in 
>progress [RFC7624] that considers such inference-based attacks in a 
>more general framework.
>OLD: The IAB privacy and security program has also produced 
>[RFC7624] that considers such inference-based attacks in a more 
>general framework."

I gather that you meant "NEW" for the second part.  I am okay with that text.

>The text says "to our knowledge"; no DPRIVE or IETF review comment 
>to date (or errata to RFC7626) has contradicted this statement so I 
>think it is a fair representation of the community knowledge on this 
>matter. If you are aware of such a law please suggest text.

I asked whether there was a study.  According to the above, it is 
what the DPRIVE Working Group believes even though there wasn't any 
study.  I would like to thank you for the response as it addresses my question.

S. Moonesamy