Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-11

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Thu, 31 August 2023 17:21 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 BD313C1519B1; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 10:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0f7yqclBbKXH; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 10:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa4.dc.icann.org (ppa4.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.77]) (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 18C3FC151543; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 10:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-E2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.7]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTPS id 37VHLatD025801 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 31 Aug 2023 17:21:36 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.37; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 10:21:35 -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 15.02.1118.037; Thu, 31 Aug 2023 10:21:35 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
CC: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-11
Thread-Index: AQHZ2CQvrveAggQhoUyxDfzZkyQXqrAFJD4A
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 17:21:35 +0000
Message-ID: <04310F41-6926-4FDF-91E1-6DB305435EA6@icann.org>
References: <169305778631.51777.3452361747442761670@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <169305778631.51777.3452361747442761670@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <149659217019E644BF191C7BB8E9A781@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.267,Aquarius:18.0.957,Hydra:6.0.601,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2023-08-31_14,2023-08-31_01,2023-05-22_02
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/ufGggsraAEp4tUGk4cYxuBnVrcE>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-11
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Addition of privacy to the DNS protocol <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: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 17:21:54 -0000

Thanks for the review! Notes below. Based on your review, we have issued draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-12.

On Aug 26, 2023, at 6:49 AM, Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> ## Minor
> 
> - Section 4.6.1, in the below text, does "persistence" play no role when you
> say "regardless of how long in the past that was"?
> ~~~~
>   *  E-status[X] is success, and (T0 - E-last-response[X]) <
>      persistence
> 
>   This indicates that one successful connection to a server that the
>   client then closed cleanly would result in the client not sending the
>   next query over Do53, regardless of how long in the past that was.
> ~~~~

Good catch! We will remove that last clause.

> 
> - Section 4.6.5, in the text "if Q is not present in any other *-queries[X] or
> in Do53-queries[X]", does Do53-queries not part of *-queries? If this is not
> true perhaps please explain early on what *-queries mean. (Note there are other
> instances of this as well)

Thanks for noticing this. *-queries was a bad name; we've changed it to any-E-queries.
> 
> - Section 6.2, suggest to state clearly why modeling the probability is listed
> under privacy consideration. This is not clear from the current text.

Added.

> 
> - Appendix A, any reason not to follow RFC 7942?

Can-o-worms, already heavily discussed in the WG.

> 
> - Appendix B, considering expanding this more on how would you judge this
> experiment to be a success and perhaps move to standards track?

Can-o-worms, already heavily discussed in the WG. 

> 
> ## Nits
> 
> - Abstract, shouldnt "underlying transport" be "underlying encrypted transport"?

Yes!

> 
> - Section 1.2, add DoH

Instead of adding it here, we will define it in the one paragraph where it is used.

> 
> - For the quotes in Section 2.2
>    - It is better to state the RFCs where these quotes originate.
>    - You could also use visual cues via blockquotes

Done.

> 
> - Section 3, you expand DoT and DoQ here but, they have already been used
> without expansion in 2.2

Fixed.

> 
> - Section 4, s/in failed resolutions or significant delay/in failed resolutions
> or significant delays/

Fixed. 

Again, thanks!

--Paul Hoffman