IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 06 February 2020 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 C8E091200CD; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 09:31:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.405
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.275, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 TVb0GS4l0baI; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 09:31:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8413C120108; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 09:31:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Zephyrus.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 016HVC3v025315 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:31:14 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1581010275; bh=fW6baI6COieJgAS1/9PxKUy6w09VaaDK/eEBPBX4rpE=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=N4qifJjR3t9jftIcmluQRl8hZ3RKRhkpMYc8UdPcfsg9CgCDDMeOClpfyv2Wyxyur kzwT/cIo7kKFVClnEYHdSDW05gKVwLtu4gDys2t7ID6pw4Gyen/rAuvJiR2n9tS+YK FpAoO0qTGaFjc/d54R1BPmjki0k509PCtKzo69pA=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Zephyrus.local
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op@ietf.org, dns-privacy@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, dprive-chairs@ietf.org
References: <158096547226.30514.2103023305468871108.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAH1iCiqLwP8UOJe_vWQAr7iu8j7LF2Y4+386XNimM+3wJ-2RzQ@mail.gmail.com> <9fe99917-347b-ab79-7a9c-3e8da67a5246@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <364cf548-9114-fcb3-52b6-a73be08b55c4@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 11:31:07 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9fe99917-347b-ab79-7a9c-3e8da67a5246@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/I4d69wt6EVuEFg3dRWRapPNW-c4>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: (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: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 17:31:18 -0000

On 2/6/20 09:08, Adam Roach wrote:
>
> For the specific example chosen, it's been made pretty clear over the 
> years that at least the clients for the specific service you cite have 
> no interest in incurring this additional cost. If that's the working 
> group consensus, then I have no interest in over-riding it. But 
> ignoring operational realities seems kind of ivory tower-ish, which 
> feels like the kind of thing that undermines the general credibility 
> of the rest of the document.
>

I realize that my editing made one of the pronoun antecedents here go 
away. The second sentence should have said something more like "If 
keeping the current text is the working group consensus..."

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email