IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] DPRIVE agenda for IETF 111

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 16 July 2021 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 B8E363A3DB9 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 10:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 0VVayNcBhcoU for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 10:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 B92A73A3DBD for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 10:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4GRHc23Vfcz3J1; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:02:42 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1626454962; bh=OgftxhSr0iSSP/CN+0Y/W6TA0QRejTOXWh4M3RTKgek=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=qCj5lnmt2+AXYKS2B7tSWDuEZIW1bQbbwKWrOErTpLu0zRkDf8LNbp6qoeHPN5FUO i2RtvbegLFe23XE7JZAq42jjTkXQ5lCbunegyoFvJpZ5qFNskbsxmQRpVRP4Nr3ry+ RkIV6ri8qE/tP3MaJ4jEDQ/s6mqq7hf5+8Y80ycs=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id InvAWzqVVmOr; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:02:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:02:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D8B85CA1B7; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 13:02:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D576ACA1B6; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 13:02:39 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 13:02:39 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
cc: "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <de24e523-5cb2-ae91-71df-d8bfad13b829@innovationslab.net>
Message-ID: <63997def-b335-f826-7e6c-98c65e9de6c@nohats.ca>
References: <de24e523-5cb2-ae91-71df-d8bfad13b829@innovationslab.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/LbBgHltbZCD2Vh2LPl7Z4lFX3xs>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] DPRIVE agenda for IETF 111
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 17:02:51 -0000

On Fri, 16 Jul 2021, Brian Haberman wrote:

>    Here is the preliminary agenda for the DPRIVE session at IETF 111.
> If there are no objections or late additions, the chairs will cancel the
> second 1-hour slot assigned to DPRIVE.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/agenda-111-dprive-00

As we have two drafts that are assuming that SVCB records for a zone can
be served at the parent, I think we need to talk aboutthis at the meeting.

I've tried to convey that this is an unrealistic reality, and that work
should focus on this not happening, eg drafts should not specify
"interim" solutions for this to happen. It would be good to get clear
working group consensus on this so the draft authors can take that
consensus into account for future draft versions.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email