Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] A Few More Suggestions for the Requirements Draft

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <> Mon, 19 April 2021 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B65AD3A3B99 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1V9uJgwK64AY for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:25:33 -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 CD83D3A3B97 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; l=1763; q=dns/txt; s=VRSN; t=1618853133; h=from:to:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject; bh=fhI60N8/BAfK4Y812wCnh+Ji2YjOKSnY239QbaTGdSk=; b=RY9VHVycX0ed7gQIX+IfPBeMbsDwrMFXXeKY50voVVg3dNh84l8/I8Mu 6Xu5YXNsdoIgcW6SSTS5Lrfx9cI9u3U3dKVL4gR856tuAMbJceiHS5eFK UhBX3AhU2Qn/ejSwrh0S23LayWDg5C6HT61VxOTBa6zyDuWefmhbo9szf cLsVY8/xzeZhcUXf9FrxzrFlrTXFF2FIAq0rxYrBYkDvr0R8ogtwKMWYa rOKvV1T5/97R0LoFyNRKuchT/VbJzt22ahlBfao44Eu2XeBlp72teOYj+ 0WZOCWn83S7xtJO7TjVQ/AHmR7343xzfk+IHZ3dAadvVbO8ImGMmnEKg4 g==;
IronPort-SDR: x2mSSijaAqjz84OzXgEA9RDOL5B+1QGwtxHFZn035TWnZLrMYehKH9iVm9jAj+L2olsXx83oNQ UDhShNbIOmgLmTg8nkd81pajVRUKeNMNTiSo3wSIIHaGbUP1uUKwOxicbzJwD/oOQJ6v1+gmAw YQjWyLLfp3U8JepfqfP51mjU7KRQBHj7hwST66+ghXxQVT7X74I50cPo72ZkNVAXUQfzxMf/fI pxlAgmv5shTPhxKEvrTLa5jhNsd8BGLBAEXBCruIcsOE8gtOBexrcIbvCxCT7Ae7g61gwyQG4n kV4=
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:CJxdVaxkTC61hbh9svvMKrPwu71zdoIgy1knxilNYDZSddGVkN 3roe8S0gX6hC1UdHYrn92BP6foewK4ybde544NMbC+GDT3oWfAFvAB0aLOyyDtchefysdzzq FlGpIRNPTVLXxXyfn3+xO5FdFI+ra62Zulj+vf0HthJDsCA51I1RtzCQqQDyRNNWp7LKc+fa D82uN34xStfngNZtm2Cz0vT4H4y+HjpdbDbQQdDxAqrCuDnVqTgoLSIly90g0FWz1ChY0+93 PI+jaV2oy4v+qlxgTn22jf0pRTlLLaoed+OA==
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,234,1613451600"; d="scan'208";a="6513784"
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2242.4; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:25:31 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::7c0a:1cc:5def:9dde]) by ([fe80::7c0a:1cc:5def:9dde%4]) with mapi id 15.01.2242.008; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:25:31 -0400
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] A Few More Suggestions for the Requirements Draft
Thread-Index: Adc1JmDTl2PA57CeQxawHvYGbccYdAAU8D4AAA5ZRGA=
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 17:25:31 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] A Few More Suggestions for the Requirements Draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 17:25:38 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dns-privacy <> On Behalf Of Paul
> Hoffman
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 1:15 PM
> To:
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] A Few More Suggestions for the
> Requirements Draft
> On Apr 19, 2021, at 8:08 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott
> <> wrote:
> > I have a few more suggestions for draft-ietf-dprive-phase2-requirements.
> Before we start making point-level suggestions for the draft, it would be
> useful to know whether the draft is still being worked on, and what its
> expected status will be. The draft has not been updated in nearly six months,
> even though the authors said they would after the IETF meeting five months
> ago. My feeling from that is that the authors have lost interest, and maybe
> the WG has as well.
> The purpose of the draft has shifted significantly. The -02 draft changed from
> "requirements" to "requirements and considerations". The meat of the draft
> (Section 5) is no longer requirements, but "features"; however, there are still
> MUST and SHOULDs among those features.
> If the WG continues to work on this document, it would be good to first say
> what it's new purpose is (such as requirements on solutions documents), and
> whether it should be expected to be published as an RFC or just kept as a
> checklist before the WG moves other documents forward.

That would be a good discussion to have. The WG charter currently says this:

"Develop requirements for adding confidentiality to DNS exchanges between recursive resolvers and authoritative servers (unpublished document)."

Does that need to change?