From nobody Mon Apr 19 13:44:09 2021
Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 CE4823A4349
 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level: 
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
 header.d=innovationslab-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44])
 by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id tavXbtcWS64B for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x736.google.com (mail-qk1-x736.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::736])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FF053A441E
 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x736.google.com with SMTP id y136so5165410qkb.1
 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=innovationslab-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; 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;
 d=1e100.net; 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 smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 19sm10438099qky.67.2021.04.19.13.43.48
 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: dns-privacy@ietf.org
References: <fc3621bb82f24753ba3a17d60df59879@verisign.com>
 <E2D1CEE3-64F1-4A48-8EF3-19B37ABB0F83@icann.org>
 <064c169412764689a3129b8e162806ac@verisign.com>
 <1BE0F181-68A1-464A-9D7D-824181F4A69B@icann.org>
 <e79a2c21dfd70a122e3c49d6d3cb6b59@tcb.net>
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Message-ID: <6db404b2-7367-8400-6830-c5ef5b77532a@innovationslab.net>
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: <e79a2c21dfd70a122e3c49d6d3cb6b59@tcb.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="FxF4e8DZZRHpBUiKRl7nJ2h2Bd41KsndQ"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/wUUUNxxnuIGKmP9CJlw8NTc4zq0>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] A Few More Suggestions for the Requirements
 Draft
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <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: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:44:08 -0000

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--FxF4e8DZZRHpBUiKRl7nJ2h2Bd41KsndQ
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="hRrrAsgBweqeI9UgZztp7iSetI3B36eXQ";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
To: dns-privacy@ietf.org
Message-ID: <6db404b2-7367-8400-6830-c5ef5b77532a@innovationslab.net>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] A Few More Suggestions for the Requirements
 Draft
References: <fc3621bb82f24753ba3a17d60df59879@verisign.com>
 <E2D1CEE3-64F1-4A48-8EF3-19B37ABB0F83@icann.org>
 <064c169412764689a3129b8e162806ac@verisign.com>
 <1BE0F181-68A1-464A-9D7D-824181F4A69B@icann.org>
 <e79a2c21dfd70a122e3c49d6d3cb6b59@tcb.net>
In-Reply-To: <e79a2c21dfd70a122e3c49d6d3cb6b59@tcb.net>

--hRrrAsgBweqeI9UgZztp7iSetI3B36eXQ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



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.
>=20
> Not sure what that means.=C2=A0 Is there a summary of those "good WG
> discussions" and where consensus may or may not exist?
>=20
> I'd prefer to have some succinct and comprehensive requirements here
> before finishing all the solutioning...
>=20

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
discussions.

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.

Regards,
Brian



--hRrrAsgBweqeI9UgZztp7iSetI3B36eXQ--

--FxF4e8DZZRHpBUiKRl7nJ2h2Bd41KsndQ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="OpenPGP_signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_signature"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=AST3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--FxF4e8DZZRHpBUiKRl7nJ2h2Bd41KsndQ--

