Re: [dns-privacy] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with COMMENT)

Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com> Fri, 07 May 2021 13:52 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 9E84C3A2275; Fri, 7 May 2021 06:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 v8Bk_QDiRaUC; Fri, 7 May 2021 06:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (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 AD2133A226A; Fri, 7 May 2021 06:52:52 -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=J2opEsOMRLWEd+nBI9FRNC7j82+x0c5egplrxHZHJdE=; b=U1C+fbnsbtPQjBGLQ0MBlnQOKF fw7hvRqZ2TgqS6Z2h69PWa7Bv8qlc43Crz4qAGEZN062/COsucGC8j+hvw71Az/xtzN3WOUFjy7LX xx6GAXMo0hC1W60Ri+OR7+rw5vYUdq7IKA4jqtSaO9G9InwTEzvmzE4lULFLpwXkmhQck36cd2twY qohVHUXzAxVjM7NvTXMrH/8BJMQJ5PUY0m4tQ2RnaCiZUjuU+Y9IStp695h3Fu+YqyUTJZFE+nuXS /YMM/bMbZIaH93w4tca0prO8Vl4bmdP34fIZ+iU/HkxZZXf8IHhdIXnbJGbbXG7UP0272fFbEDY0n JHE3z1JQ==;
Received: from [62.232.251.194] (port=32745 helo=[172.27.240.6]) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <sara@sinodun.com>) id 1lf0uO-0002iX-H6; Fri, 07 May 2021 14:52:48 +0100
From: Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com>
Message-Id: <8D84B65A-F3D7-493E-BF9B-5C6EAEC34686@sinodun.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C38DF2FE-A09E-4209-ABBC-A3A86CB834A4"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.20\))
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 14:52:42 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6Sw7B+-UOmW=jokj=pJ98C0LNQ-UWXEeaMkmLmuWB1e5ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, DNS Privacy Working Group <dns-privacy@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls@ietf.org, dprive-chairs@ietf.org
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
References: <162029258799.4438.17810066446598908741@ietfa.amsl.com> <BD583019-493F-4D4A-B69B-C6CDE79993DF@sinodun.com> <CAChr6Sw7B+-UOmW=jokj=pJ98C0LNQ-UWXEeaMkmLmuWB1e5ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.20)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/k8IMyuSIPh6ZSeM5martWABocPo>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with COMMENT)
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, 07 May 2021 13:53:06 -0000


> On 7 May 2021, at 03:44, Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 4:58 AM Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com <mailto:sara@sinodun.com>> wrote:
> > 
> > (3) It wasn't clear to me whether the text in the appendix is meant to be
> > normative or illustrative.   It might be helpful to be clear which it is meant
> > to be.
> 
> A good point - it is meant to be illustrative - I’ll add text to clarify. 
> 
> Many thanks!
> 
> There are other comments suggesting the appendix should be deleted. Is there a response to those?

I saw those comments on the TLS list - I’m still working on my response to Ben Kudak’s detailed COMMENTS (which is the one IESG review that raised this question) so I’ll address this point in context in that thread.

Sara.