[dns-privacy] Preliminary Minutes Posted

Tim WIcinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 25 July 2015 08:07 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4B11A8A9C for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 01:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Q79hncnDidgK for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 01:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 914A01A8A7C for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 01:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicmv11 with SMTP id mv11so85246067wic.0 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 01:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6Zttuoqs0x9wmvffoN613Pj6ZE/Dvo0U2qYh/DzWk8o=; b=gEZoC/TFKszzo18i8DXMpMDVjNTJ8rW7+pa9PLDB1SCdBB/X+9C/fiGpOiM+0J0dZo /rqxExyBdWPDRirJXxlr5ixeMdokGAe91uII5L7cW0yG5pQ94mGcnuOjreX7FEA9C/lj TafT3VR9BMBgI9CNRIYeudbkiFp3Bni8owRIpn6zllN57NcZNugoXwl5exNxGYWD8MmX lrykT3wlcYa6GBd/yqnfrYDQgL9YCgP2hZxJUd4h4EUQDIdpQsijEFlmDE7v8cC8R7kU ZNPvkO/Ec9zHN/6qHtN0Q0O9EujpgkLTjArUwm1JEglB6An3o4AKHDZHEkoPzWTC7lZS 5K8w==
X-Received: by 10.180.7.129 with SMTP id j1mr4532968wia.39.1437811658256; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 01:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from feather.local ([31.30.2.5]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id ed10sm2179162wic.0.2015.07.25.01.07.36 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 25 Jul 2015 01:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
To: dns-privacy@ietf.org
From: Tim WIcinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55B343C7.9010800@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:07:35 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:41.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/41.0a2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/dN_JhAff8lkLG1O1kd8-Gu5A_Js>
Subject: [dns-privacy] Preliminary Minutes Posted
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:07:41 -0000

All,

I posted the preliminary minutes for the dprive meeting. They can be 
found here:

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/minutes/minutes-93-dprive

Thanks to Stephane for note taking at the last minute, even with flaky 
wireless.


To summarize the chairs actions, the first ones were around the 
start-tls for DNS draft presented.

On the question of
	 "Do without a "start TLS"-like approach, just port-based"

      Hum for:
          Drop negotiation, only (new) port-based: strong signal
          Bad idea: silence
          I don't know, I don't have enough info
	(discussion on what data is necessary: we have none): strong signal

------

On the topic of the "Early Allocation of a port"
      Hum:
          early allocation of a port:
               yes: strong signal  <-------
               no: silence

-----

During the presentation on the evaluation document, it became obvious 
that many people had not read the draft.
The question was raised to see
	"Who finds this useful and should be adopted"

      Hum:
          useful and should be adopted: more than 5 :-)

	("May be they watched the movie and did not read the book")

------

The rough consensus in the room was to
	request an early port allocation request; and to
	start with a new port directly.

The chairs will need to go back on think on the evaluation document.

thanks