η₯žζ˜Žι”哉 <[email protected]> writes:

> At Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:31:15 +0000,
> Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >1) I believe it would be a mistake to publish this without synchronizing
>> >the TLS-related aspects of DNS-over-TLS and DNS-over-DTLS.
> [...]
>> >2) On TLS verification, this document should reference RFC 6125 and
>> >describe how naming information should be compared with the locally
>> >known data with what is being presented by the server.
> [...]
>> >If merging DNS-over-TLS and DNS-over-DTLS is not an option, another
>> >possibility is that TLS-related aspects are deferred from both documents
>> >to another third new document that describe how to perform TLS
>> >credential verification for DNS-over-(D)TLS in a generalized way.  Then
>> >there would be harmony in the TLS-related aspects, and the respective
>> >document can focus on the DNS-related aspects.  If document editor
>> >cycles is limiting factor, I would volunteer to help write this.
>>
>> Fully agree on all counts. If the WG wants to move both -TLS and -DTLS to
>> the IETF, it makes no sense at all to have them have different crypto
>> properties. I don't care if the answer is "harmonize each before
>> finishing" or "harmonize them by reference to a third document".
>
> I have some preliminary question about the 'If'.  I don't remember
> exactly how the DNS/DTLS draft became a wg document, but IIRC when we
> adopted DNS/TLS from several candidates the decision was to focus on
> this particular solution while allowing flexibility of discussions
> other ideas at a lower priority, so we can at least publish one
> concrete solution document as soon as possible.  I have no problem of
> discussing DNS/DTLS itself, but if my understanding about the wg focus
> is correct, I don't think it a good idea to delay publishing DNS/TLS
> because of it implication with DNS/DTLS.  In that sense merging these
> two drafts doesn't seem to be a good idea to me.  Extracting and
> deferring some parts of DNS/TLS may be acceptable if the resulting
> DNS/TLS draft is still a self-contained document to be published.

Both DNS/TLS and DNS/DTLS were adopted by the WG, check the mailing list
archives.  In that light, I believe it make sense for them to be aligned
with each other.

/Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

Reply via email to