Re: [dns-privacy] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8932 (6629)

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 06 July 2021 17:44 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 058F03A2FA6; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 10:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 MjiAigtnOFTb; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 10:44:52 -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 430E23A2FBC; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 10:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4GK91D42DLzF4c; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 19:44:48 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1625593488; bh=g+cCqxWpFk0tSCRBxLs/aEvUUt+w3fKC0bUG8t17zkM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=rQN5gI2mVWW+aq03aqWNh15H4qrekABkkw5SG2qrhxjil7/0siKU4wWmYdQPQvS3p 6WHruRaIAUO+UbTGBeMuTc3SqItFqfF9wPCDV9QYX8oHMGJp6QeAPtX6n5Me9Wdal0 CodFXZFtqP5/BYVGLJ1DRlHyZrUsYf2cBg7hg8BQ=
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 T3VvL9FG5yT6; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 19:44:47 +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; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 19:44:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 475BBC3B56; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 13:44:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43E71C3B55; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 13:44:46 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 13:44:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Peter van Dijk <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, roland@nlnetlabs.nl, allison.mankin@gmail.com, benno@NLnetLabs.nl, joeri.deruiter@surf.nl, sara@sinodun.com, iesg@ietf.org, dns-privacy@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com
In-Reply-To: <e54dac88c8059d1a525430aefb3dc974cdccada6.camel@powerdns.com>
Message-ID: <801c2a1b-b769-73f7-069-e275ad7b9dc@nohats.ca>
References: <20210705131118.1D835F40725@rfc-editor.org> <253fb97-d0d4-efd7-817a-fa851ffe2d63@nohats.ca> <e54dac88c8059d1a525430aefb3dc974cdccada6.camel@powerdns.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/OB0_8qdbazyn7UPI3vlKHSBQB-c>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 06 Jul 2021 11:33:39 -0700
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8932 (6629)
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: Tue, 06 Jul 2021 17:45:04 -0000

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021, Peter van Dijk wrote:

> On Mon, 2021-07-05 at 09:33 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps instead of ephemeral/non-ephemeral, a fix would be:
>>
>>  	One example would be to replace all TCP/UDP port
>>  	numbers with one of two fixed values indicating whether the
>>  	original port was a system port (<=1024) or non-system port (>1024).
>
> system port (<1024) or non-system port (>=1024)

Peter is correct :)

Paul