Re: [dns-privacy] Moving forward with draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis

S Moonesamy <> Wed, 22 January 2020 11:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2959F12004C for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:14:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s4uzXPqbFC6V for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:14:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C6F120048 for <>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:14:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 00MBDmT1021025 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:13:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1579691639; x=1579778039;; bh=lnIgWSzoCvHzNKHmGTiP+vGqmMOPD8L2g8Tuw6fb9bw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=KvA60gJPWkbqU0rxpH+a02/ORMX6e9QKw5fVsNtkPbhtXVlg0FpDnNxwwIouf8ANE 7WoOSymPRyhKZZAynxRBSGeRgPprApiLPCSACuFXfTgTWdBX++agGcF56Ky5J/H5ID quUi3ZmhxyRP2bHJDFP8odbUFhRktUf4l9jF3JBU=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:13:27 -0800
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Moving forward with draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 11:14:11 -0000

Hi Eric,
At 08:08 AM 13-01-2020, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>There have been a lot of emails following the IETF last call (that 
>expired 2nd of December 2019). Up to the point that now the 
>discussion is about commenting comments that were comments on a 
>previous comment. To be honest, I have lost the thread here.
>By this email, I am asking Sara and Stephane to propose a revised ID 
>trying to integrate the maximum feedback that are based on 
>facts/data rather than opinions. Once it is done, then we can 
>continue the discussion in a more useful way. If the document is 
>heavily updated, then I am requesting another IETF last call.

Thank you for following up on the Last Call comments and for 
requesting another Last Call[1].  I took a look at 
draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-04 and the DPRIVE Working Group mailing 
lists.  It looks like my comments were either ignored or not addressed.

S. Moonesamy