Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com> Tue, 03 July 2018 11:00 UTC

Return-Path: <sara@sinodun.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26EF6130E5C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 04:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 Phon6QWB0zWk for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 04:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
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 4DB18130E4B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 04:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:b98:204:102:fffa::409] (port=59505) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <sara@sinodun.com>) id 1faJ2P-0000C0-NX for dnsop@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jul 2018 12:00:05 +0100
From: Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_116E141D-1B69-49D9-B8AD-CD72F6092570"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.4 \(3445.8.2\))
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 12:00:00 +0100
References: <17A1E6A9-E43F-41AB-B24D-4B29F17FCC07@gmail.com>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <17A1E6A9-E43F-41AB-B24D-4B29F17FCC07@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <0F92A99D-E13E-43E3-98BF-8870EE7A6157@sinodun.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.8.2)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 14
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/CrX_KnYa3LWm0bwR9JXrVQLowug>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 11:00:11 -0000

Hi all, 

Two questions came up recently when writing the DNS Privacy BCP with respect to terminology (and on the dns-operations list):

1) What do folks think about adding a new definition to this document for a shortened term for DNS-over-TLS? Since  we now have DoH I’ve often taken to referring to DNS-over-TLS as DoT in talks and presentations. But this isn’t an acronym used in any standard and it is also potentially confused with meaning DNS-over-TCP  (and there is also a DOTS WG at IETF). DoTLS and DoTCP have also been proposed which work well in written form, but don’t sound as good, so we could consider DoT and DoTCP? Other ideas?

2) The second questions is if it is worth including DoH client/server definitions here and also updating the definition of 'Privacy-enabling DNS server’ from RFC8310 in this draft to include servers that implement DoH and/or DNS-over-TLS. I suspect having one term for such servers might make some of the anticipated DRUI work easier, but I realise including DoH could create dependancy problems  :-)

Regards

Sara. 


> On 22 Jun 2018, at 21:01, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> This begins the working group last call for draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-10, "DNS Terminology”. The document has gotten significant feedback and the editors have worked hard to document current terminology usage, both among practitioners and for broader audiences; we’d like to advance it.
> 
> We’re seeking consensus to advance it to the IESG with an intended status of Best Current Practice. Note that it’s intended to obsolete RFC 7719 ( the earlier “DNS Terminology” document). 
> 
> If you support it, please say so. If you don’t, please say why.
> 
> The current version is at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/
> 
> Last Call will run for two weeks, closing on Friday July 6. This will allow for discussion of any major outstanding issues at IETF 102.
> 
> 
> thanks,
> Suzanne, Tim, & Benno
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop