IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] WGLC on draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https

Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com> Fri, 04 May 2018 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <sara@sinodun.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 483DD1242EA for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2018 10:03:56 -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 A0SmH373fb15 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2018 10:03:54 -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 0D4771200F1 for <doh@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2018 10:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:b98:204:102:fffa::] (port=61666) 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 1fEe7a-0007wf-Ej for doh@ietf.org; Fri, 04 May 2018 18:03:52 +0100
From: Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_24F38A31-D068-47DA-8197-306A126C824A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 18:03:48 +0100
References: <EB0551FD-B7D6-4834-9979-75D162FC5A62@sinodun.com> <DBFFE98A-972D-44BE-AD20-5F3C7B378312@sinodun.com>
To: DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <DBFFE98A-972D-44BE-AD20-5F3C7B378312@sinodun.com>
Message-Id: <2AE1447E-98A1-41CA-91B7-3019711D3E8E@sinodun.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 14
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/51Q-fltfCPF0F9ZvwKBiW6DDa9Y>
Subject: Re: [Doh] WGLC on draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https
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: Fri, 04 May 2018 17:03:56 -0000

Hi All, 

The text in the latest GitHub version of the draft now uses phrases like "a client MUST specifically authorize DNS API servers”. 

I’m not clear if there is any difference between ‘authorizing’ a server and just using a server? If there is some subtlety here then I’d like to understand if but if not I created https://github.com/dohwg/draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https/pull/174 <https://github.com/dohwg/draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https/pull/174> to simplify the text and also put the discussion of selection of server in its own section. 

Sara. 

> On 30 Apr 2018, at 18:59, Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 4) Section 8: With regard to trusted/untrusted servers I would suggest at least a small restructure for clarity. At the moment the first discussion of the client trust model is in section 5.3 ‘Server Push’.
> 
> I would suggest adding a section before this (possibly after section 3) called something like ’Trust model for client queries’ with the following (combining text from section 5.3 and 8):

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email