IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] New Privacy Considerations Section Proposal

Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> Thu, 21 June 2018 14:16 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 CD4AA131094 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:16:42 -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 2sVrGZxmU1Pw for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linode64.ducksong.com (www.ducksong.com [192.155.95.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EEFB131092 for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-f178.google.com (mail-ot0-f178.google.com [74.125.82.178]) by linode64.ducksong.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B14243A03B for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:16:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-f178.google.com with SMTP id a5-v6so3721691otf.12 for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E15fAP1pTN6B4iF89mqNlUgjHZhOlcJsKt5TbHiEoBd00q3Jt7z tBHo8dhoUeucuSOuuvdvN7iDRxM2EqtUDm5qVO0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJlv1mrLWILJVcj455g35R7SqCXqg6I92HS0SJbJw16LJbyXUE2Oi2L4wx8l5CxQIqwNzlXyW0e0V+PmuSLRJo=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:1142:: with SMTP id p2-v6mr15029308otp.110.1529590594576; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4a:8a32:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <60056EED-498C-4E85-85A0-48A646FE04DC@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>
From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:16:33 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqO9Z3tCUeeS+XYfSLNpv=mJGVSGR9EJO2Xb2cQ=_uk2g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqO9Z3tCUeeS+XYfSLNpv=mJGVSGR9EJO2Xb2cQ=_uk2g@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="0000000000000aa973056f279085"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/p1JMjxcpdAUDDCg6T2YGmXG445A>
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 14:16:50 -0000

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.


>
> Nit: Section 2.5 in that document is called ‘In the server’ not ‘On the
> server’ as in the current PR text.
>
>
got it. thanks.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email