Re: [Doh] New Privacy Considerations Section Proposal

Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> Thu, 21 June 2018 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
X-Original-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAADC130E96 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.233
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 uAl2S9Wecltz for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linode64.ducksong.com (linode6only.ducksong.com [IPv6:2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe6e:e8da]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AF99130E77 for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-f182.google.com (mail-ot0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by linode64.ducksong.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 973843A05B for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:35:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-f182.google.com with SMTP id d19-v6so3816700oti.8 for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2w3udi+WltGbiQdyTpAmg6d4qhiRhtA7TeqrdiihzRG6jAMjsY E36f+vYprcfMlHwAqAMlIgjBGguy8cL7n3a22Mo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLtkr3bMwci3pizmYFkUwar/xWV0FKcCH9/DTm7Dcec6UxV99jMf8ghJgY41B7/UlDQVWjurjraLLQRalOp8kA=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:1142:: with SMTP id p2-v6mr15077248otp.110.1529591747324; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4a:8a32:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <DB56D720-78F2-4DF3-A205-E820001222DB@sinodun.com>
References: <CAOdDvNpY4NpvSKW_D__jztDD_wkaRsJna9L+Br+hdnDnQ8w5SQ@mail.gmail.com> <a8f12fe6-57d8-70ed-dc68-126c972b75f4@riseup.net> <CAOdDvNrfQuN4ePV2qeh9jChmaOhjp9VQWD4xeiNBUgSSJAre5Q@mail.gmail.com> <9fe2b4d7-14a7-934d-cd38-a7396dfec48a@riseup.net> <CAOdDvNqQVDn3SVpPNwm4bj63dps41x7EPu3VENGYUdAVh0cDxQ@mail.gmail.com> <60056EED-498C-4E85-85A0-48A646FE04DC@sinodun.com> <CAOdDvNqO9Z3tCUeeS+XYfSLNpv=mJGVSGR9EJO2Xb2cQ=_uk2g@mail.gmail.com> <DB56D720-78F2-4DF3-A205-E820001222DB@sinodun.com>
From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:35:46 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpxYyCo3p3BPkN2ESnprN4_zsqDQ3aGC4s1vgR7X_EvAg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpxYyCo3p3BPkN2ESnprN4_zsqDQ3aGC4s1vgR7X_EvAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com>
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, nusenu <nusenu-lists@riseup.net>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c03014056f27d467"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/-1CpG_clExwC1SkMcNB4L2qTaUs>
Subject: Re: [Doh] New Privacy Considerations Section Proposal
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <doh.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/doh/>
List-Post: <mailto:doh@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 14:35:50 -0000

but ekr counters us both - seems like 8067 fits the documents at hand well.
happy to make 7626 normative knowing that.


On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 21 Jun 2018, at 15:16, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> One further issue - RFC7626 (DNS Privacy considerations) is currently an
>> informative reference. If the draft  is going to argue that all
>> implementors must make their own decision about balancing HTTP
>> functionality against privacy then RFC7626 is a document they should be
>> required to read. I think this should be a normative reference.
>>
>
> unfortunately 7626 is informational and making it normative from DoH would
> (aiui) be a down reference that isn't allowed from a standards track
> document.
>
>
> Good point, well made. I missed that. :-)
>
>