Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WGLC : draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

From: Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 6:11 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WGLC : 
draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing




Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 2:05 PM Hollenbeck, Scott <[e-mail] 
<mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:



On Jun 6, 2023, at 8:42 PM, Rob Sayre <[e-mail] 
<mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote

On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 11:23 AM Hollenbeck, Scott 
<shollenbeck=[e-mail] 
<mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

Measurement of CPU and memory use between Do53 and DoT or DoQ.
Measurement of query response rates between Do53 and DoT or DoQ.
Measurement of server authentication successes and failures.
Measurement and descriptions of observed attack traffic, if any.

...

[SAH] It would be unreasonable if we were discussing a proposal that had no 
impact on root and TLD name servers. Under some conditions, this proposal can 
affect their ability to perform their primary function of responding to DNS 
queries. Those conditions need to be understood.



I think the measurements you suggest make perfect sense. I don't think there 
is anything in the IETF process that leads to the conclusion that this draft 
must be Experimental as a result, though. So, my objection is about the ad-hoc 
process created for this draft. I also don't get the impression that this 
draft would enjoy instant adoption, so there would be time to slowly ramp it 
up. For example, 23 years separate RFC 2616 from RFC 9112, but they are both 
on the standards track.

[SAH] The IESG deliberately chartered this working group to “Investigate 
potential solutions for adding confidentiality to DNS exchanges involving 
authoritative servers” in an Experimental manner. As Brian noted, that’s a 
binding agreement with the IESG. We can either do that or attempt to 
re-charter the working group. I’m under the impression that Brian’s last note 
to the group was a request to discuss those two options, which could include 
discussion of how to conduct the experiment. It’s not an ad-hoc process at 
all.



Additionally, some of the operators of those services are subject to 
regulators who commonly require them to implement, deploy, and operate IETF 
standards. That’s another good reason to do our best to understand the 
operational impact before this becomes a proposed standard.



I never like to read stuff like this. Each of us probably has a regulator that 
annoys us in their treatment of some issue. But we can't really make decisions 
based on guesses about the future actions of unnamed regulators. I'm also sure 
you know the document ladder quite well, but you've used imprecise terms here. 
In the first sentence, you say "IETF standards". But the last sentence says 
"proposed standard".



[SAH] I used those terms deliberately. My employer has contractual obligations 
to implement a mix of IETF-developed Proposed Standard and Standard 
specifications – that is, “IETF standards”. In the last sentence, “proposed 
standard” specifically refers to one possible status for this draft.



Scott