Re: [dns-privacy] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-dnsodtls-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Wed, 14 December 2016 10:05 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 335A2129500; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 02:05:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896] 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 DOFhU2zn-nlY; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 02:05:49 -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 A9FF41299EC; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 02:05:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 2595A28017A; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:05:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC1728010A; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:05:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1691BB38004; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:05:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 10A443FBB0; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:05:18 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:05:18 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <20161214100518.kkbi3pda3n2giham@nic.fr>
References: <148163419601.29447.15218887979317459041.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <b07056c0051f4c10b43aab2f10916583@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com> <f7f5c629-55e1-b256-0fe1-0b445eecf6a2@cs.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f7f5c629-55e1-b256-0fe1-0b445eecf6a2@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux stretch/sid
X-Kernel: Linux 4.7.0-1-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161126 (1.7.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/lS6C8dw71ZHMHuOVvkd0nXj_3GQ>
Cc: "tjw.ietf@gmail.com" <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dprive-dnsodtls@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dprive-dnsodtls@ietf.org>, "dprive-chairs@ietf.org" <dprive-chairs@ietf.org>, "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-dnsodtls-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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, 14 Dec 2016 10:05:51 -0000

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 07:43:28AM +0000,
 Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote 
 a message of 317 lines which said:

> > Yes, will add the above text to a new Section (named "Document
> > Status")
> 
> Great.

I think it is not really necessary, the status Experimental of
draft-ietf-dprive-dnsodtls-13 seemed enough to me.

> > > (2) Section 4: No mention of OCSP stapling?

> > I think the right place to discuss this would be in
> > ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles-07#section-8.1,

I fully agree with this opinion.

> Maaaaybe. Be good to cover it there certainly but not sure if that's
> sufficient.

What is missing? draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles-07 rightly
avoids to reinvent the wheel and refers to RFC 5280 and RFC 6125. I
don't think it is up to the DPRIVE working group to improve/change
PKIX.