IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-07.txt> (Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service Operators) to Best Current Practice

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 20 December 2019 06:19 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
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 922F9120219; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:19:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=elandsys.com
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 iwqtTjOheYha; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:19:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709AD12004F; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:19:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.105.142]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id xBK6JLhJ018644 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:19:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1576822772; x=1576909172; i=@elandsys.com; bh=u8Ji3cmYOJcwitQHbUqr72gm2DM0SYkZMrmwPssU47A=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ZPIOfO6AW6bNOwc3HJSFl3XyagT6JJCxhdSDmYzdh+hGSPqFmiEubUkq8pmT3/F3i 297TNfEjR5Ry7T60QcuWeLOhijAuuBsBmwDe7g0dnt5Y8xtLH//vVa4iN7aKC+18ui G3b3TsqKN7GA8DsiwBs3uof5H2TYkAhLgc3H5Lwk=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20191219214501.11adec28@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:19:04 -0800
To: dns-privacy@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: dprive-chairs@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <157676591810.27491.5332518530732320835.idtracker@ietfa.ams l.com>
References: <157676591810.27491.5332518530732320835.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/XTVKnMdeSJIXWMCTA0RpYZVlXgo>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-07.txt> (Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service Operators) to Best Current Practice
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, 20 Dec 2019 06:19:35 -0000

Hello,
At 06:31 AM 19-12-2019, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the DNS PRIVate Exchange WG (dprive) to
>consider the following document: - 'Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service
>Operators'
>   <draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-07.txt> as Best Current Practice
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
>comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-01-02. Exceptionally, comments may

There is the following statement in Section 1: "These open resolvers 
have tended to   be at the forefront of adoption of privacy related 
enhancements but it is anticipated that operators of other resolver 
services will follow".

The title of the draft states that it is about recommendations for 
DNS privacy service.  On reading the draft I struggled to understand 
what is a DNS privacy service.

In Section 1, the draft states that the impact of recent legislative 
changes on data pertaining to the users of both Internet Service 
Providers and public DNS resolvers is not fully understood.  It does 
not make sense for the IETF to publish policy guidance when there 
isn't an adequate understanding of the data protection implications.

The draft states that a desired operational impact is that all 
operators (both those providing resolvers within networks and those 
operating large public services) can demonstrate their commitment to 
user privacy thereby driving all DNS resolution services to a more 
equitable footing."  The statement comes out as being 
aspirational.  Is that the case?

The draft states that choices for users would (in this ideal world) 
be driven by other factors e.g. differing security policies or minor 
difference in operator policy rather than gross disparities in 
privacy concerns.  It is unaligned with reality to formulate a 
statement on an ideal world.

In Section 5.2.1, legal requirements is listed as a threat.  Did the 
authors assess the laws in different jurisdictions to support that conclusion?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email