Re: [dns-privacy] draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles: configuration

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 26 October 2016 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 CA8AB12950F for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 08:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 eWROz_7LUFGB for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 08:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 3876A129487 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 08:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.145] (50-1-99-230.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.99.230]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u9QF4kX7045247 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Oct 2016 08:04:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-99-230.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.99.230] claimed to be [10.32.60.145]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: "Sara Dickinson" <sara@sinodun.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 08:04:47 -0700
Message-ID: <E0D8C66E-5BBA-44D3-A781-D052AC1671F1@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <DEC6674A-3242-4577-ADD3-EEA0662F3AE9@sinodun.com>
References: <0C22EAF1-6087-44C4-9F33-D9CFAD78B01C@vpnc.org> <DEC6674A-3242-4577-ADD3-EEA0662F3AE9@sinodun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.5r5263)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/egZ79JqBMwYfY-g-GQGH_I0Tuss>
Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles: configuration
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:04:50 -0000

On 26 Oct 2016, at 6:24, Sara Dickinson wrote:

>
>> On 23 Oct 2016, at 00:26, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Greetings. Someone reading this document for the first time might not 
>> understand where the DNS name that is being discussed in the main 
>> body of the document was found. It is not until Section 8 ("Out of 
>> Band Sources of Domain Name") that this is mentioned, and that feels 
>> much too late.
>>
>> The document might be much more approachable if Section 8 was moved 
>> to immediately after Section 3, and if it was re-titled 
>> "Configuration of the Domain Name for Verification
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> This is a good point. As suggested in my other email I propose 
> including a definition in the Terminology section of ‘authentication 
> domain name’. Here is what I suggest:
>
> * Authentication domain name: A domain name that can be used to 
> authenticate a DNS Privacy enabling server. Sources of authentication 
> domain names are
>    discussed in Section * and Section *.
>
> And then also moving sections 7 and 8 to immediately after section 4. 
> I suggest after section 4 rather than 3 because 4 is currently the 
> ‘Discussion’.  However I’m not averse to splitting the 
> Discussion section up as it is rather large now….

Good point. Maybe moving 7 and 8 to be after 4.1 would make sense ("here 
is how you start, and here are what profiles are"). You could split 
Section 4 up or make it longer; it doesn't really matter as long as you 
don't go beyond three levels of heading there.

--Paul Hoffman