[DNSOP] tools issue? was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-00.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 09 September 2019 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D60612025D; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 07:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IxnB-p48attm; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 07:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (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 10B8E120047; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 07:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46Rqc56271z1K0; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:02:29 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1568037749; bh=1v7mUMBfgVpchFoGsNP+Pcl57W95EMfgKtU3CYQRRXM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=TyyJttkzRKD7g+LaSxXwDHl94AEsOVh7x5HykEmrEY28rzhJSAMRQDiQGG2ujp35J HkxX8PMqiEvsBIVAmR78owX3GcwmAPppUfS0zTOYZwMnhzpBfc5VoFRhKWhYv7Mi4b vCwsuCOsNGUKPtZpPQ1bTyinZGpNQ7QSvCyNhUKk=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iTMVytkC8wRV; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:02:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:02:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 786C6933; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:02:26 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 786C6933
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7B54001699; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:02:26 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:02:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Willem Toorop <willem@nlnetlabs.nl>
cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, tools-development@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <97f8b8fb-91ad-ca74-b65b-d82698517203@nlnetlabs.nl>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1909090954540.4992@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <156802477017.28268.17780089460480647573@ietfa.amsl.com> <86ff56cd-c936-0a81-b276-f4fd61635c7f@nlnetlabs.nl> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1909090848430.8758@bofh.nohats.ca> <97f8b8fb-91ad-ca74-b65b-d82698517203@nlnetlabs.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/p88cfpvTD0Zac6hlbC3XMQoGKBs>
Subject: [DNSOP] tools issue? was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 14:02:34 -0000

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019, Willem Toorop wrote:

> No, Client IP is still included in *Server* Cookie generation, just not
> in Client Cookie construction.  So the re-user from different network
> protection is still there.

Ohh, I misunderstood that. Perhaps note this down in the to be Security
Section :)

>> I cannot see a diff because you didn't instruct the data tracker that
>> this adopted document continues from the individual submission :(
> Oh, sorry.  I indicated that it replaced the previous draft (and
> Donald's) that is not correct?

That normally ensures the datatracker does the tracking and the diffs,
but it does not look like that happened for this document. It appears
as a fresh submit without any history. Even weirder, it seems that the
old document indeed got the update reference:


but the new document does not link back to the old one and misses the


I CC:ed the tools team on this who might be able to see/fix what happened?