[dns-privacy] Moving forward on draft-ietf-dprive-unauth-to-authoritative

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Wed, 16 June 2021 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.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 028033A1FA5 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 fnrWO5_hxeWI for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:13:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa4.dc.icann.org (ppa4.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.77]) (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 F04943A1E58 for <dprive@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-E2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.7]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 15GHD4wu022342 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dprive@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:13:04 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.858.12; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:13:03 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.0858.012; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:13:03 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: "dprive@ietf.org" <dprive@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Moving forward on draft-ietf-dprive-unauth-to-authoritative
Thread-Index: AQHXYtLdbkOKiq3D5UyOQEmQJSi81A==
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:13:03 +0000
Message-ID: <9928187B-8A36-48BA-8C93-2E1A7EAAA2C2@icann.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D6B2F2E5-AFE8-4CE7-BF31-8FBAEECDFDC6"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-06-16_11:2021-06-15, 2021-06-16 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/iKGtp4xe0-SFTCf4JhISprNFMOo>
Subject: [dns-privacy] Moving forward on draft-ietf-dprive-unauth-to-authoritative
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Addition of privacy to the DNS protocol <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, 16 Jun 2021 17:13:09 -0000

Greetings again. Based on the WG discussion of the last few weeks, we can see that the folks with the fully-authenticated use case do not yet agree on a signaling mechanism. Given that, we have just published a new version of draft-pp-dprive-common-features that lists "SVCB on the client side" as one discovery mechanism, and a new version of draft-ietf-dprive-unauth-to-authoritative that points to that mechanism. When the folks with the fully-authenticated use case do agree on a signaling mechanism, that can be added to the -common-features draft.

We would like the WG chairs to have a formal call for draft-pp-dprive-common-features to be a WG document soon so we know how to deal with it before the draft cutoff before the next IETF meeting. If the WG wants it as a WG document, great; if not, we would pull back all those features into draft-ietf-dprive-unauth-to-authoritative and the WG would have to decide what to do for the eventual fully-authenticated draft.

--Peter and Paul