Re: [dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-04.txt>

Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com> Thu, 23 January 2020 13:08 UTC

Return-Path: <sara@sinodun.com>
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 D20E31207FC; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 05:08:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sinodun.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 QcdPo6S3Ilnl; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 05:08:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (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 D8526120639; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 05:08:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sinodun.com ; s=mythic-beasts-k1; h=To:Date:From:Subject; bh=gpEs19lKMg6EnZ0aL0F87nr1zYtzltY3x1myPYudeqw=; b=ko6L/jTD1820XowprOJagSm7gw lRChD3nuslyMbydRf4ph/tdvt89ZYTgSSOQxJ9+IniCeP0rMcrllsXdiV22938ci2qpNwIz5eq8TL RgyTt/Bu+sSXHoc0RLxAW/a5f8k7Go0buLUW65q8hg/q1NHEZtLiYkp2kcbBeN7uJF3u9+0ucDjDj CSPBBNWiY0EdRqbJaj5LiGKNDH38Yeg6JdySsoikd1dg/rIoAH/VB3uDUo8gs2uEhoxhA2qioDMit KfF2IOrXTsKI7ImSN3Ho9p9hWWn+MeiKeffxKFzd9ZrNUQ/52Ns8cMuQZHcB7vxtCLS0WkNyu81eU a/DucY3g==;
Received: from [2001:b98:204:102:fffa::2] (port=60620) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <sara@sinodun.com>) id 1iucE3-0007Vx-Fu; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:08:47 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <1894786863.49288.1579617979839@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:08:46 +0000
Cc: "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis@ietf.org>, "dprive-chairs@ietf.org" <dprive-chairs@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A2566E1C-DF3A-41EE-B21C-E31A71B547B3@sinodun.com>
References: <157955609351.1744.15099511006231348523.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <417BE033-4DE5-452A-BE93-0657C83051BC@cisco.com> <1894786863.49288.1579617979839@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com>
To: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/z1RuGVZ8szdRzwtPfdYpV77bvP4>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-04.txt>
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: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:08:51 -0000


> On 21 Jan 2020, at 14:46, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Il 20/01/2020 22:45 Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com> ha scritto:
>> 
>> But, as section 3.5.1 ("in the recursive resolvers") raised a lot of discussions during the first IETF Last Call, and as the authors reacted to those comments by deep changes in the text, let's have a new IETF Last Call before proceeding with IESG evaluation.
> 
> First of all, I'd like to thank Sara for all the effort in rewriting a lot of text yet another time to address all the comments. I think the result is good, even if I would have preferred other text on certain things.
> 
> There is only a minor comment that I still have on 3.5.1. The new version has a part about DNS centralization risks, but it only addresses the risks deriving from the ISP market, not the newer ones coming from "application-specific resolver selection", which were mentioned in -03. I have two alternative text proposals to cover this:
> 
> 1) in the bullet list in 3.5.1.1, add another bullet:
> 
> "* popular applications directing DNS traffic by default to specific dominant resolvers"

I’ll add this with a reference to section 3.5.1.1.2

> 
> or 
> 
> 2) in 3.5.1.1.2., last paragraph, just after "increase or decrease user privacy" and before the hyphen, add:
> 
> "and promote or counter centralization”

Sure.

> 
> Given Eric's (not Éric's :-) ) comment on the requirements for user control in 3.5.1.1.2, i.e. that they also apply to the selection of non-encrypted resolvers today, it would be fine for me if they were extended to device/OS resolver configuration in general. In that case, I would plead for the addition of a point regarding the fact that the user should be enabled to configure the resolver for the OS and all the applications at once, in a single place.

I don’t disagree that this a desirable feature but since the remit of the document is to describe the current situation, and this option is not available today AFAIK I’m not sure it should be included. I suggested to Ekr that text is added at the start of the second paragraph in this section that says:

"Such application-specific setting introduce new control points on the end user device for DNS resolution settings in addition to the historically used system settings.”

Would that address your concern?

> 
> I also have an editorial suggestion: to reduce the nesting of sub-sections in 3.5, perhaps you could break down section 3 into multiple first-level sections and do some renumbering, e.g.
> 
> 3. -> 3.
> 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 -> 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 within "4. Risks in the DNS data"
> 3.4 -> "5. Risks on the wire"
> 3.5 -> "6. Risks in the servers"
> 3.6, 3.7 -> 7.1, 7.2 within "7. Other risks”

I like this suggestion and agree it would make the document structure better - thank you, will update.

Sara.