Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] A Few More Suggestions for the Requirements Draft

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Mon, 19 April 2021 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
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 F3E1E3A439A for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 i-GVIsznu_nv for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa2.lax.icann.org (ppa2.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.77]) (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 886B03A439F for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.5]) by ppa2.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 13JKpFaT008327 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:51:15 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.858.5; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:51:14 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.0858.010; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:51:14 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
CC: "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dns-privacy] [Ext] A Few More Suggestions for the Requirements Draft
Thread-Index: AQHXNUEIPk7oZNeZikKdbXN4SesgGKq8lGCAgAABwICAAC4agIAAAhUA
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:51:14 +0000
Message-ID: <B5193FC1-C8D2-418F-9533-7EC25C515AC9@icann.org>
References: <fc3621bb82f24753ba3a17d60df59879@verisign.com> <E2D1CEE3-64F1-4A48-8EF3-19B37ABB0F83@icann.org> <064c169412764689a3129b8e162806ac@verisign.com> <1BE0F181-68A1-464A-9D7D-824181F4A69B@icann.org> <e79a2c21dfd70a122e3c49d6d3cb6b59@tcb.net> <6db404b2-7367-8400-6830-c5ef5b77532a@innovationslab.net>
In-Reply-To: <6db404b2-7367-8400-6830-c5ef5b77532a@innovationslab.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_446BF743-8508-4EE6-AA27-BD5CE0703FFD"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-19_11:2021-04-19, 2021-04-19 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/LpTiclo7gsGhZ-oD351wzUKpgFg>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] A Few More Suggestions for the Requirements Draft
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: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:51:21 -0000

On Apr 19, 2021, at 1:43 PM, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:
> 
> The goal of the referenced work item is to ensure that the WG
> participants agree on the requirements.

Great, but then we're back to the question of what are "requirements", particularly because the current draft has moved away from that.

> Having that be done in a draft
> is far cleaner than relying on various people's recollections of
> discussions.

Fully agree, if we can agree what the base is.

> If everyone goes back to the minutes of our session during IETF 110,
> Benno explicitly told the WG that he is happy to work on a revision
> *with WG input*. I view Scott's messages to the ML as being an attempt
> to provide such feedback to the draft authors on what he sees as useful
> changes to the draft. Scott's suggestions should be discussed to see
> what suggestions have consensus.

That feels premature, given that we don't actually know what the document is supposed to be about.

--Paul Hoffman