Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] How do we want to use draft-ietf-dprive-phase2-requirements?

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 20 April 2021 16:59 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 8FAB83A093D for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 09:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 1jpamBzzZ1ll for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 09:59:35 -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 3F7803A0937 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 09:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.5]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 13KGxXlx028188 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 20 Apr 2021 16:59:34 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 15.2.858.5; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 09:59:32 -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; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 09:59:32 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
CC: "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [dns-privacy] How do we want to use draft-ietf-dprive-phase2-requirements?
Thread-Index: AQHXNWDSrDg4c3XMP0m3RFPwNuPZPqq+F6gA
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 16:59:32 +0000
Message-ID: <E3EDCE70-5796-4F24-B10C-D951F48D3665@icann.org>
References: <121ae494-d7f0-37da-cf53-44f75df2fa75@innovationslab.net>
In-Reply-To: <121ae494-d7f0-37da-cf53-44f75df2fa75@innovationslab.net>
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=_C69AA693-6545-44ED-B7A2-BFEBC270A3E5"; 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=2021-04-20_07:2021-04-20, 2021-04-20 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/zzqxi7G1u1cQ_GLGlZVM0d-2g8w>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] How do we want to use draft-ietf-dprive-phase2-requirements?
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: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 16:59:40 -0000

On Apr 19, 2021, at 2:13 PM, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:
>     My question to the WG is how do we want to use this draft? I see
> four possible approaches, but I am sure someone will point out others.
> 
> 1. Strictly requirements - these would be MUST-level functions that the
> WG determines have to be supported by any solutions draft.
> 
> 2. Strictly design considerations - these would be functional areas that
> the WG determines need to be considered, but not necessarily included,
> by any solutions draft.
> 
> 3. Requirements & design considerations - This is generally where the
> current draft sits IMO.
> 
> 4. Drop the draft and let the solutions flow.


As a document author, I prefer #4 but with a modification: every solution document must have an honest, readable Security Considerations section that covers the design considerations. By "honest", I mean that the text there needs to have WG consensus, including of the people who have a different preferred solution. 

My rationale for no longer needing a separate document is that the WG discussion of adopting the opportunistic/unauthenticated draft, and the possible adoption of the fully-authenticated draft, has pretty much fully brought out all the requirements and design considerations for both proposals. 

--Paul Hoffman