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

Stephane Bortzmeyer <> Fri, 07 October 2016 09:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E8312944D for <>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 02:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nA8lo3Zf6Ajj for <>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 02:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A534A12953C for <>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 02:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (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, 07 Oct 2016 11:48:40 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>
To: Tim Wicinski <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
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: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profile
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 <> 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

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.