IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] [Last-Call] last call review of draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-03

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Fri, 10 January 2020 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 0C1E51208EA; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 08:55:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 NZr4KNN0rvrt; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 08:55:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (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 2F58B120130; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 08:55:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id C68CE28010A; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 17:55:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id BE69A2806C0; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 17:55:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (relay01.prive.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:15::11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B681C28010A; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 17:55:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.users.prive.nic.fr [10.10.86.133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B25C46A9F3A0; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 17:55:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A025F3FD4B; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 17:55:08 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 17:55:08 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com>, Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, last-call@ietf.org, DNS Privacy Working Group <dns-privacy@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis.all@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200110165508.GA8820@nic.fr>
References: <157504194893.4871.5551746255324168227@ietfa.amsl.com> <208AD30F-1213-4784-81FC-4AB76730CEC2@sinodun.com> <a02720cf-01b3-d61a-94d2-b3d0a399f107@cs.tcd.ie> <20191223220509.GK35479@kduck.mit.edu> <CAChr6SyAhA8V7AQHC67vTEmHWgd+gMzM-ZtFTkBDUhsvVQEC8A@mail.gmail.com> <614B534F-D62D-432C-A3E5-A01D9BF972AA@sinodun.com> <CAChr6SzbtzYPa8D6yFv+f74==6JFQtM+BVyPKR8NAiBG0p-icQ@mail.gmail.com> <187F7041-9537-4767-A824-DA8103356570@sinodun.com> <CABcZeBNscStJzpqZfmjstLFYtuvfKc2TMicK6xbag=DbztafCQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNscStJzpqZfmjstLFYtuvfKc2TMicK6xbag=DbztafCQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 10.2
X-Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-6-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000247, version=1.2.2
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2019.11.5.63017
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/TOYLk6uk_yHtj8VMGwGjmMXfjdQ>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Last-Call] last call review of draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-03
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: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 16:55:50 -0000

On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 10:29:29AM -0800,
 Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote 
 a message of 181 lines which said:

> > It means a standards compliant DoT implementation will have no
> > client identifiers, a standards compliant DoH implementation is
> > free to (and likely) to include them.
> >
> 
> [Citation needed]

I'm not sure I understand your remark. Do you mean that Sara's
sentence should be backed up with specific references? I mean, since
DoH is HTTP and HTTP (unlike DNS) has a lot of headers that, together,
can identify a client, is it enough to reference HTTP RFCs to support
the claim?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email