IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WG strategy on opportunistic vs authenticated moving forward

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 13 July 2021 16:18 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 BC3D13A1A00; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
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, 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 ELYAsxPST2xH; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa4.dc.icann.org (ppa4.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.77]) (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 B4FDA3A1574; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-E2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.7]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 16DGI9Eg007427 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 13 Jul 2021 16:18:09 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 15.2.858.12; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:18:08 -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 15.02.0858.012; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:18:08 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WG strategy on opportunistic vs authenticated moving forward
Thread-Index: AQHXd//EYpBo98G0G06Kmpoqj3t21atBiq2A
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 16:18:08 +0000
Message-ID: <13D06C82-0036-45FD-9E03-160D54D1FB66@icann.org>
References: <CADyWQ+FQsJmmqsVhBqxK6RP-0RhOHVqvMN_bQ4CEpBWNCU+LJg@mail.gmail.com> <929241ebd32b449bbaf5167ad17eafed@verisign.com> <3DAAA234-0447-4870-9DF3-A0A9B11392AD@icann.org> <89a17c65ff9a4708845d0fb57fd1d5cb@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <89a17c65ff9a4708845d0fb57fd1d5cb@verisign.com>
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=_376547A4-A22E-48D2-B7D8-70482985B664"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-07-13_08:2021-07-13, 2021-07-13 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/UeQPTIjW_BaZnqlXuLoUd0-igOI>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WG strategy on opportunistic vs authenticated moving forward
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, 13 Jul 2021 16:18:14 -0000

On Jul 13, 2021, at 8:56 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> If a solution can be developed that works for all levels of the DNS hierarchy, fine

Are you saying that the current WG draft, draft-ietf-dprive-unauth-to-authoritative-03, doesn't work at all levels of the DNS hierarchy? If so, the specifics of that would be important for the WG to work on.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email