Re: [Doh] [Ext] A question of trust (was Re: Draft -09 and WGLC #2)

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Thu, 31 May 2018 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
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 3718512EC26 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2018 06:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 HA7HHAaCZAic for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2018 06:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (unknown [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 445BF12EC38 for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 May 2018 06:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Thu, 31 May 2018 06:46:22 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Thu, 31 May 2018 06:46:21 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
CC: "doh@ietf.org" <doh@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Doh] [Ext] A question of trust (was Re: Draft -09 and WGLC #2)
Thread-Index: AQHT+MDH1fDyXz4bL0C/ZAkrkwFDV6RKTySA
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 13:46:21 +0000
Message-ID: <33BE0098-C168-4B75-9B8F-D31AB45749AA@icann.org>
References: <382ba525100a4561b086fe8b8b6527be@ustx2ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com> <603D7553-D1A9-4DCC-9E74-199059C56A9F@sinodun.com> <1daad94d-99c1-803a-f52c-1dd17adefb7a@o2.pl> <CAOdDvNrpLwF5jpn1YA4-HXsfGxVkdds+xHVd6Bxy0Ux+3nrcrA@mail.gmail.com> <CA9BEE64-9F16-4CCC-A1E0-4C7FD45C455C@icann.org> <20180528161043.GB12038@mx4.yitter.info> <CABkgnnV3kKFCzKLfPf_0WZh95jr2vEt652Rb4EozfqROCVsJdA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNrPU9WM3WgcX1AVF39D3bGdxCKgPAF_afhfv2Qt0pZR5g@mail.gmail.com> <DB7D40D6-455A-48DD-AB98-DF2CF0866222@sinodun.com> <CAOdDvNopKvs18jQizgyiAQq8UyB4GwdqyXfXPa+25pNrxWg8pA@mail.gmail.com> <20180530143833.GB3110@mx4.yitter.info> <197F1CB0-DFA5-4720-94E0-223D708B0D79@icann.org> <3920ACC9-D167-4E2C-88E7-7A2AB317EA16@sinodun.com>
In-Reply-To: <3920ACC9-D167-4E2C-88E7-7A2AB317EA16@sinodun.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <57BBB6F5691BDD4C9F3239570CEF1A15@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/-KTRT36zpyQKVCfyAfFJZyUWLfQ>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] A question of trust (was Re: Draft -09 and WGLC #2)
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 31 May 2018 13:46:28 -0000

On May 31, 2018, at 2:20 AM, Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com>; wrote:
> I agree with Andrew here - the document doesn’t define either configuration or discovery and they are open to interpretation. A reader who has not been privy to the repeated discussions on the mailing list has no context within the document itself to accurately judge the distinction. If these terms were defined it would be easy to state what is in scope and what is out of scope and clarify the document further. If we as a WG struggle to define them then that in itself speaks to a lack of consensus on the problem statement.
> 
> I agree the new text is clearer about the push scenario but the general case of ‘configuration’ is still under specified IMHO.

Without a discussion here on proposed text about what either of you think configuration is, any attempt that we make has a high chance of making the wording worse for the majority, not better. (My personal preference is to defer this discussion to DRIU because configuration is an issue for all DNS clients, not just those using DOH, but am happy to hear new wording as long as the WG has energy to grind on this.)

--Paul Hoffman