[dns-privacy] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-03

Stephen Farrell via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 29 November 2019 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 019081201E3; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 07:39:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stephen Farrell via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, dns-privacy@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.111.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <157504194893.4871.5551746255324168227@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 07:39:08 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/ZAQp_R5H4VBm_ZNZRaOmLcPlmt8>
Subject: [dns-privacy] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-03
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 29 Nov 2019 15:39:09 -0000

Reviewer: Stephen Farrell
Review result: Ready

I might not be the best reviewer for this one as I've read it a few times
before. But anyway, I scanned the diff [1] with RFC7626 and figure it
seems fine. 

The only thing that occurred to me that seemed missing was to note
that while the new privacy analysis in 3.5.1.1 is already complex, many
systems are mobile and hence an analysis that ignores that won't be 
sufficient. For a mobile device one really needs to analyse all of the 
possible setups, and hence it's even harder to get to a good answer. 
(It could be that that's elsewhere in the document but since I only 
read the diff, I didn't see it:-)

Cheers,
S.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc7626&url2=draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-03.txt