Re: [dns-privacy] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hzpa-dprive-xfr-over-tls-02.txt

Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com> Fri, 19 July 2019 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <sara@sinodun.com>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD47120193 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 06:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sinodun.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BeGLfhzvyee2 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 06:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balrog.mythic-beasts.com (balrog.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45A64120198 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 06:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sinodun.com ; s=mythic-beasts-k1; h=To:Date:Subject:From; bh=JWbEx4dkeJdB2XVdLi5HN0fmqBc714oB4IfZ0eJ7pxc=; b=TaDjrPsfMdODzvWgHxyYA/NeV2 4bZrI0fercCmZ6toJVqL/RGYTFuVgx2OzbbiztcBO5g1gJfh8tgfUxiS3HWWrRoU8+7JYRL9lk3Y/ z0Rf7/Y05VkdlvvBkSFJ/F+HtL59s6AbpklXAoBv7hnYXzj+NJl9ME6fLXB4Bew62FjOqKLw2/2Yo zIhjz5Vg4J1BF8cQkltSa0pd+SGFUT8IOpZPdyqAWzrHd9PCcZHIC9u9j2O2cKtgoH3qdUuhNDI5+ Lf0t2ud24rEiOFAzYmx5VnaBkFf5ACdOd/oxk3bEYDKSNM0auZaLsmf3K8BFAydZ+AXibJBvu/Mea ByrjfZwQ==;
Received: from [2001:b98:204:102:fffa::41e7] (port=55396) by balrog.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <sara@sinodun.com>) id 1hoSiw-0001LL-S4; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 14:15:03 +0100
From: Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com>
Message-Id: <B7B4EECB-5865-4A37-83A2-95BA6E0233F6@sinodun.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7484D090-27DD-47DA-A6F5-45CA5234EEC8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 14:14:53 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CA+nkc8C1X9=B1=1F7hgGG6X2VGENjM8Fwos=oc3JJQJFHytGaA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org
To: Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu>
References: <156260685662.1085.5040034814991813351.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <F5CEE63F-838C-4323-810A-30920E49E330@sinodun.com> <CA+nkc8C1X9=B1=1F7hgGG6X2VGENjM8Fwos=oc3JJQJFHytGaA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/cYDv8GdGfa2gFwpr6ModAB5q3d4>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hzpa-dprive-xfr-over-tls-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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, 19 Jul 2019 13:15:11 -0000


> On 11 Jul 2019, at 16:06, Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 4.1. AXFR Mechanism
> 
> "zone is update to date"
> 
> "update to" -> "up to"
> 
> 4.2.
> 
> "forth step" -> "fourth step" (in several places)
> 
> 4.3. Data Leakage of NOTIFY and SOA Message Exchanges
> 
> "This section attempts to presents a rationale"
> 
> "presents" -> “present"

Thanks for spotting those!

> 
> 
> 6.2. TLS
> 
> Not sure that these are the right words.  "surveillance" to me implies a passive watching.  Which means:
> "passive surveillance" - is redundant, and
> "active surveillance" - is a contradiction in terms.
> I assume that "active" means sending packets to try to confuse the server or client, which I would call an "attack" and not "surveillance".
> Or am I wrong?

I think you are right, using ‘attack’ here would be more correct - will update. 

Sara.