Re: [dns-privacy] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9250 (7883)

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

This wording in RFC9250 was deliberate. It was discussed in details when 
the RFC was written. The current text correctly reflects the result of 
these discussions.

-- Christian Huitema

On 4/4/2024 6:38 PM, RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9250,
> "DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7883
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Lyra Naeseth <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: 7.5
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> Implementations SHOULD use the mechanisms defined in Section 5.4 to
> mitigate this attack.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> Implementations MUST use the padding mechanisms defined in Section 5.4
> to mitigate this attack.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> Section 5.4 states that "[i]mplementations MUST protect against the traffic analysis attacks described in Section 7.5", but Section 7.5 describes that obligation as a "SHOULD". "MUST" is correct, and the inconsistent "SHOULD" in Section 7.5 is an error.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it
> will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9250 (draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-12)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections
> Publication Date    : May 2022
> Author(s)           : C. Huitema, S. Dickinson, A. Mankin
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : DNS PRIVate Exchange
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG