IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] Second Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Thu, 07 November 2019 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 1FC9D12093C for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 07:57:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 ny0FIfmWKi6T for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 07:57:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (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 AD63E12093D for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 07:57:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id BE1662806CA; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:57:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id B6960280723; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:57:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (unknown [10.1.50.11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC662806CA; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:57:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A989A642C581; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:57:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9668C43BED; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:57:03 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 16:57:03 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com>
Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dns-privacy@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20191107155703.GA12098@nic.fr>
References: <CADyWQ+GirqA_VKYTAjGpV+aFMQiio2AAqtMX_2SRg45Crpf_-A@mail.gmail.com> <20191101103831.GA22563@sources.org> <7489BA67-4037-444D-AB10-71A3EECB98D5@sinodun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <7489BA67-4037-444D-AB10-71A3EECB98D5@sinodun.com>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 10.1
X-Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-6-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.096720, version=1.2.2
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2019.11.5.63017
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/hqVtMoaOJO5JiAJ1fhNdeK2hQaI>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Second Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:57:11 -0000

On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 01:16:29PM +0000,
 Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com> wrote 
 a message of 241 lines which said:

> The current usage is the result of a discussion on the very first
> version of the draft (draft-dickinson-dprive-bcp-op-00, June 2018)
> and since then (limited) usage of RFC2119 language has been
> present. There have been comments on both sides that the language
> should be stronger and weaker and this was the compromise
> outcome. The SHOULD does ripple through the document though as it
> defines all the Mitigations listed in the later sections as being
> recommended for minimal compliance. How much of an issue is this for
> you?

Not too important. 

> I can understand this reading of it but item 1 you list above was
> not at all the goal of this at all text. Perhaps this could be
> better phrased as “A DNS privacy service should strive to engineer
> encrypted services to the same availability level as any unencrypted
> services they provide.”?

OK, fine.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email