Re: [dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-04.txt>

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 02:14:43PM +0200,
 Vittorio Bertola <[e-mail]> wrote 
 a message of 144 lines which said:

> Every time the authors put the effort to rewrite it once again
> according to the comment, and every time a new comment comes in
> saying that this is not enough. I admire their patience.

Not "the authors", just Sara, she was the one patient and
hard-working, the other author was lazy.

> I think this section has already been rewritten at least half a
> dozen times, and every time there was a claim that it is not neutral
> (sometimes even on text that previously seemed to be ok).

Yes, and I think I know now the root of the problem. 7626bis tries to
go too far and, instead of discussing the DNS protocol and its privacy
issues, now goes into end hosts and discuss what is done inside the
machine, and what should be done. This is certainy interesting, and it
certainly has consequences on privacy, user control, etc but:

1) It is a bit outside IETF's domain, since it is not inside the
network,
2) There is clearly no consensus inside IETF about it.

My personal opinion is now that the best way out of the problem is to
drop discussions about internal (to the end host) issues.

> These privacy impacts, even if with very variable views, have been
> the subject of many conferences, articles and talks in the last
> couple of years

Which clearly demonstrated that there is no consensus about it.

> You seem to miss the point, which is not about users setting their
> preferred resolver at the application level, but about applications
> that by default ignore the resolver settings in the device and pick
> their own preferred resolver independently from the user.

There is zero difference between an user using the resolver configured
in the OS and the user using the resolver configured in the
application. In both cases, the user uses the default value, not
knowing how to change it or if he/she should change it, or even that
it exists.

Also, Christian is right here: there is no clear definition of OS
vs. application and creating one seems to me quite outside of IETF's
realm.

> I am also puzzled by the fact that this draft was actually in last
> call six months ago, and it only received a single objection just
> before the deadline, and since then we have entered an endless cycle
> changing it again and again and again. I did my best to help with
> compromise text as requested but I do not understand where this
> process is going.

See my suggestion: IETF should stop discussing relationship between OS
and apps (which is fuzzy, anyway) and should focus on network
protocols.