IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] next steps for draft-opportunistic-adotq

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Mon, 22 March 2021 21:10 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 A0EBC3A11D0 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 e3OUMkPNztrL for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa3.lax.icann.org (ppa3.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.78]) (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 796553A11CE for <dprive@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-E2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.7]) by ppa3.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 12MLAaWL011814 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 22 Mar 2021 21:10:37 GMT
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 Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.721.2; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:10:36 -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 15.02.0721.013; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:10:36 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
CC: "dprive@ietf.org" <dprive@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [dns-privacy] next steps for draft-opportunistic-adotq
Thread-Index: AQHXH1/NIPMHwLu77kulpVvOq2QvSg==
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 21:10:35 +0000
Message-ID: <ADB00FD5-A6EA-4D05-84E8-A44A2E40BE7C@icann.org>
References: <2ba5ac12c24eaee4c51de2cd2c1693e9bd1fd8b2.camel@powerdns.com> <4bc96140-454e-0746-83b3-bb1331cf7cce@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <4bc96140-454e-0746-83b3-bb1331cf7cce@cs.tcd.ie>
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=_6A842507-CA0B-4043-A4E4-F5DB3902F8D7"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.369, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-03-22_11:2021-03-22, 2021-03-22 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/naZNB5KjXnalfayKPqakXFIHFcI>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] next steps for draft-opportunistic-adotq
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: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 21:10:47 -0000

On Mar 22, 2021, at 1:59 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> I think that makes sense with one caveat: I don't interpret
> these changes as representing a consensus to not use TLSA - I
> think such a decision is still down the road some, after we
> have some better ideas as to the practicality or otherwise
> of the various approaches one might adopt.
> 
> I know none of these are WG drafts yet but I'd be a bit
> worried that your changing to use SVCB now might be
> intrepreted in that way.

Good point. As we revise this draft, we can put a note in about us needing a signal, and use SCVB as the signal, but the signal might change.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email