Re: [dns-privacy] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profile

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Fri, 07 October 2016 09:49 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 44E8312944D for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 02:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 nA8lo3Zf6Ajj for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 02:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [217.70.190.232]) (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 A534A12953C for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 02:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 154E031D66; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:49:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by godin (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 52ADCEC0B74; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:48:40 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:48:40 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20161007094840.GA27400@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <5dc29c0c-9f34-dcac-8d94-f2722ee6a4ba@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5dc29c0c-9f34-dcac-8d94-f2722ee6a4ba@gmail.com>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 16.04 (xenial)
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/qKI3hnyCDywqYqCxFIyRDkYOvIA>
Cc: "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profile
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: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 09:49:29 -0000

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 02:58:09AM -0400,
 Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 28 lines which said:

> This starts a Working Group Last Call for:
>    draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profile

Executive summary: OK for me,
draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles-03 can (and should) be
published. I find that touchy issues, such as the relationship with
the authentication mechanisms described in RFC 7858, or such as the
table 1 "DNS Privacy Protection by Usage Profile and type of attacker"
are nicely done.

The table 1 could use some details about the possibility of detection
for passive attacks (for active attacks, it is addressed in section
5). These details were promised in
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/8VMIuFKWZUAzP7UWivLn9fA_Ew4>
:-)

Technical question:

The document seems to use "X.509" and "PKIX" as synonyms. Is it really
the case?

Small legal detail:

> this application [extended to be used for recursive clients and
> authoritative servers] is out of scope for the DNS PRIVate Exchange
> (DPRIVE) Working Group per its current charter.

A bit exaggerated: the current charter says "it [the DPRIVE WG] may
also later consider mechanisms that provide confidentiality between
Iterative Resolvers and Authoritative Servers"

Editorial detail:

> but may be the subject of a future I-D.

Should probably be removed before it becomes a RFC.