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

Brian Haberman <> Mon, 19 April 2021 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 357D33A26A9 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.002
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xGFceA8kBiuL for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A6453A26A6 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o5so37349143qkb.0 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=7jzo9t7hd5P0p1ERE5yEAgRus3Jp4IlQlKjifZ9jWo4=; b=hT8gssP2tvauk6r9yUeetJqiWKizDzWnP6UfJ5E2dSURzU17a7yVzom4/SwAc/RQ2U GyZmBDohDJJJUfn0gx3o/dqgfDhb32R8h6Y+siWWu6GNioF13etVQxaSmb7rjhxAynaN 751JQmah5Cf1wFjDGg9ltLN4SHzhWrAAz//8Dlwxd2Y2LNTQUASD1BpepmnTV/EL1H+5 OjpOSLNvku3Vs4Mu9dBg8qDNAD11ujYHyA96GbszQI3d0aBOgsR0QTgBqXMud93PPt0H D4RCMt5T/0EE7bgF4o4ubCvwesJXb/ah0US/9oAuApz/jSE4DvhOqNGBfPbUb07yEWoL hxdA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=7jzo9t7hd5P0p1ERE5yEAgRus3Jp4IlQlKjifZ9jWo4=; b=BFRuLLu3aC144QElgVcGT5AAgYAwmCUwWOiynuKeYF+MXjyTOWp9TZ1llYNfq+kLb2 aAmeappqdY6mIHZQXLVJrzon33PERugSwjDOOmuBjdI2IR1OTC4nDcFSqhnz9c5LGsdw Pdg+dM85Mchrr50AwwOK9NsRn80+SyqbIXOzOysxWNLleqE+VP2Q9HUhwbSMdY4Yge+Z Pqpk7v1AX/24VxMfJlxfhHu538Wy7APG3KLu/8PZn51jmhsvZpB0Uc28YK6a90WVPRdJ 4FJc+NHlLX59j5GSXVXlV0LwQ5Tz8+CVEbv1OubuErj6LvCZFEREpMuJUf7trgXsW4QY AtnQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5335eb52sIi8S2J2GjeeRijM6JXiNeZBzcrlbfIR7spF9x+XYr5l URPJjyZkHqD4JzuJgfgTmbranLGGT81r1gkp
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwakiS+BxlhoWtPky3C3yPKih4XSINx282mmNmLyHM8MHmt8dh6XCbcAYSCUfdW4x6t2IwQrA==
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:dcc1:: with SMTP id q184mr13761968qkf.482.1618866200824; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clemson.local ([2601:5ce:300:84e:604e:2038:bb01:633a]) by with ESMTPSA id z17sm9536708qtf.10.2021. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
To: "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian Haberman <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 17:03:19 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dTyr9zqx62IXrmc5Vf7p7nD8FwfdiHlD2"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] A Few More Suggestions for the Requirements Draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 21:03:29 -0000

Hi Paul,

On 4/19/21 4:51 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2021, at 1:43 PM, Brian Haberman <> 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.

I agree that the current draft is not just about requirements. If I
recall, that came about because some WG participants pushed back on hard
requirements and really just wanted "design considerations".

My view, as a WG participant, is that we need to decide how we want to
use this document.

>> 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.

Then let's start with a conversation about what the WG wants out of this
document. I'll start a separate thread for that.