Re: [dns-privacy] Moving forward on draft-ietf-dprive-unauth-to-authoritative

Eric Rescorla <> Sat, 19 June 2021 02:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5CC23A166B for <>; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 9qJ3utKuaABd for <>; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC67A3A1CEE for <>; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id i13so10073972ilk.3 for <>; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nSNFHWtZ25dAWglIcXWLUoYuuND5aLTRUF27mM7R+kw=; b=i1oAsb9/Zw84QvghMRNG15OeF42AFz45f/Wr7tss4iM6I2HdMHvcEZb/xIKbmOia3K VzThsCnJs8lMsnrBj5QTKILCK5xCtnVJp6/PaRoAaI5A4243KXr8qsn6OhH/r23shsZr BxRJpOXvHR1Go9mz4rXRlev9EHrfxg1vgo9QqJZ5OqWkW6ahD3drqJjN0vC5EbYU/tvx XFdIGGXrsdgGynJy/ViMXhILkPZBoQEqQNL4ejsT9Qe40k/F9mf5Szpa+yoweMcaJVn5 zXL54kreAV/AiPhydvJozo+XXFppklSltegmLlRrDBjTbbF+SnXHAacSjQmFfOxs1hB0 Eikw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nSNFHWtZ25dAWglIcXWLUoYuuND5aLTRUF27mM7R+kw=; b=n67JodeKXG4dr1kUXdQwC2bvp6b/m6EeaRCOL4h2manCDEXIaB4tF8aNHbrot/c476 5FfwzU9+a+56sR8i9pRbnjp4RqEx13Kjw6uLDf3wFgTGx050yB25Nkdh5hL0o7uVbaRb ebqU6AW4/YkuASck/QyStabZ+s+CMAwMA5ouFBTvgmD3HSMFPtXR+nwZNRLuehRcQyNd NZDMn4NDWlMSDdFd0FH7s55UDNpzhKGBqUzcjPmeDYFlHEQfztKPEmftMKXAvJDamBc1 VJn7R986P8+c4bL0xPTpNyI0LLhf8Yf+bsfr0CD0f643SVI7b99g1VIm+yycIQUUl/xX 87Vg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531gX3UxXAjGHRobkJAhVaohYg/P56cMYDh1uE/Yy9nz7QY9UmN0 RStyXuNZyczfSjJ1zfQXGxE1CrQ2RlhTSbpTp2stdw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxPvPd9Et4JjCvzl/ZxYHzCxEVXsNS1Q6k+b9nsnZ/mVwgWDyy96xz8CtLeeigQTxgSx/n5OJKi67NksKRLumQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:c5a9:: with SMTP id r9mr9116878ilt.56.1624070636495; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:43:20 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000060feeb05c515696d"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Moving forward on draft-ietf-dprive-unauth-to-authoritative
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Addition of privacy to the DNS protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2021 02:44:03 -0000

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 10:13 AM Paul Hoffman <>

> Greetings again. Based on the WG discussion of the last few weeks, we can
> see that the folks with the fully-authenticated use case do not yet agree
> on a signaling mechanism. Given that, we have just published a new version
> of draft-pp-dprive-common-features that lists "SVCB on the client side" as
> one discovery mechanism, and a new version of
> draft-ietf-dprive-unauth-to-authoritative that points to that mechanism.
> When the folks with the fully-authenticated use case do agree on a
> signaling mechanism, that can be added to the -common-features draft.
> We would like the WG chairs to have a formal call for
> draft-pp-dprive-common-features to be a WG document soon so we know how to
> deal with it before the draft cutoff before the next IETF meeting. If the
> WG wants it as a WG document, great; if not, we would pull back all those
> features into draft-ietf-dprive-unauth-to-authoritative and the WG would
> have to decide what to do for the eventual fully-authenticated draft.

I think (unsurprisingly) I am not in favor of this. Let's figure out what
we are trying to do and roughly the approach we want to follow. Until then,
adopting drafts is premature.


> --Peter and Paul_______________________________________________
> dns-privacy mailing list