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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Mon, 19 April 2021 17:14 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 1B8C73A3B46 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 P3rG5sLKwB8l for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa3.lax.icann.org (ppa3.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.78]) (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 A3D903A3B47 for <dprive@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.6]) by ppa3.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 13JHEVgX025302 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dprive@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 17:14:31 GMT
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 Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.858.5; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:14:30 -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 15.02.0858.010; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:14:30 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: "dprive@ietf.org" <dprive@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [dns-privacy] A Few More Suggestions for the Requirements Draft
Thread-Index: Adc1JmDTl2PA57CeQxawHvYGbccYdAAU8D4A
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 17:14:30 +0000
Message-ID: <E2D1CEE3-64F1-4A48-8EF3-19B37ABB0F83@icann.org>
References: <fc3621bb82f24753ba3a17d60df59879@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <fc3621bb82f24753ba3a17d60df59879@verisign.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D3F5D112-C626-420A-8BA2-5F2BA636D9A1"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-19_11:2021-04-19, 2021-04-19 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/xDksa6aqgJQJo4au6BZu42fRZ_w>
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 17:14:37 -0000

On Apr 19, 2021, at 8:08 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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.

--Paul Hoffman