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

Brian Haberman <> Mon, 19 April 2021 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE4823A4349 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 tavXbtcWS64B for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::736]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FF053A441E for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y136so5165410qkb.1 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=to:references:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=szFO0BxMS0ct8BrBRoqMeXSf+MaqyftEVN6jKxUjyl8=; b=M8suTietkUZxguzmHUoplU2wJ69NNvVvkQDSrIgRSP2jecduCTV9r+DLTURRL3Ep4/ irbjHIeKxUblVEm1WSHGaHSC5kdOTovVff7CJAp3fi1ueHJU86CwT1TtcEcO+a95SlsX o+couqQNDc/eXkL0D/RTINVOeyWRWr7gktSjSXpEDK7eCqYUtxyVxNKT40GL8iZN3T+P 2b4Y0KqrJGpucfKobZRhoGO/AwDo0MFPkPf7nODpDGY/QsLGlRuxke4lnolHbTxYUelP UmGOZPPpIvgzp3TWH18XySZKK+kUXpSegkHLmRAFEwSmNMaC5l4rkA8sXVF1AtZ1gDjZ Oncw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:references:from:subject:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=szFO0BxMS0ct8BrBRoqMeXSf+MaqyftEVN6jKxUjyl8=; b=LagZ+6mi52v9S0BwiPs9r9hkaM0mqvJjIzDpWTzHXwT2C61Qdz0KrIvbe/YG0a/W2A QGGl1m8SjBmYfQGSlRhT1pLd8ZWHf/POJF8bP5v7NTTMyxhe5TmvOqpBrUpL2RPjTTE0 JInu/p45mL4lEOXZLl5+MboCkTfC8fFPL/caZ8dhjdJZw78lU3Y0FAuYNCVK12aZ57Ar zD7i1WzaegXqOxsYIW4HAuWKo6ARjElodXJkv2QXf/JrpjGGh0cCxCC9r9QL10t+0pfc w0CWHCGhktGVW7maFct6vq8uu6G5ih2RcWEp2Qu4mfy0eMnhnjCRSCWFahkK+c9rx+yM 2YzQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530s25vR5Azol/ZiRqeQe56ifwZo45tP93iEVdn2GRPxvAR8T5Z+ 1jrSphxnAC+lyT/xeKWryN0p6xmxW/zSXLYH
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxsxc+oj5dLUEwKVva+bAB1cq5lw14EYWZLkQNSikg0nNWeoxkk2GJK2QK05yCu+cgl3vEuBw==
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:e8c1:: with SMTP id a184mr14281802qkg.98.1618865029044; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clemson.local ([2601:5ce:300:84e:e100:20ab:6e21:190e]) by with ESMTPSA id 19sm10438099qky.67.2021. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian Haberman <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:43:47 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FxF4e8DZZRHpBUiKRl7nJ2h2Bd41KsndQ"
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 20:44:08 -0000

On 4/19/21 1:58 PM, Danny McPherson wrote:
> On 2021-04-19 13:52, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> I don't think so, because the WG has been actively developing those
>> requirements without the draft moving forward, just by having good WG
>> discussions.
> Not sure what that means.  Is there a summary of those "good WG
> discussions" and where consensus may or may not exist?
> I'd prefer to have some succinct and comprehensive requirements here
> before finishing all the solutioning...

The goal of the referenced work item is to ensure that the WG
participants agree on the requirements. Having that be done in a draft
is far cleaner than relying on various people's recollections of

If everyone goes back to the minutes of our session during IETF 110,
Benno explicitly told the WG that he is happy to work on a revision
*with WG input*. I view Scott's messages to the ML as being an attempt
to provide such feedback to the draft authors on what he sees as useful
changes to the draft. Scott's suggestions should be discussed to see
what suggestions have consensus.