Re: [dns-privacy] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-06: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 07 October 2020 05:23 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 2FFF63A14DA; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 22:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 5ILTPn7q_axV; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 22:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B8423A1050; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 22:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 0975NXfn004045 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 7 Oct 2020 01:23:36 -0400
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 22:23:33 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, DNS Privacy Working Group <dns-privacy@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis@ietf.org, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, dprive-chairs@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20201007052333.GO89563@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <160204419484.9519.7742091087612533203@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAChr6Sx1nGzKpd8RnpWrv2veOnOiqqvPiPs4AbbQyzVdX-=j7Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6Sx1nGzKpd8RnpWrv2veOnOiqqvPiPs4AbbQyzVdX-=j7Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/Gr14c7_dUnnT9NcqsEtGAkYiTwE>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 05:23:41 -0000

On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 10:21:39PM -0700, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:16 PM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> > This text is essentially unchanged since RFC 7626; did we do much of a
> > search for whether the past five years have brought about changes in the
> > legal landscape?
> >
> 
> Why would we do such a search?

We would look kind of silly if we say we don't know anything but there is
now something relatively well known.

Perhaps "search" was not the best word to use; the question is more "did we
actually think about this statement and is it still accurate?".

-Ben