Alissa and Ben,

Is there any chance that you may quickly check whether the new version 
addresses your previous DISCUSS ?

The plan is to put the document back on an IESG telechat

Thank you

-éric


-----Original Message-----
From: Sara Dickinson <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, 18 June 2020 at 17:28
To: IESG <[email protected]>, Eric Vyncke <[email protected]>, 
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, DNS Privacy Working Group 
<[email protected]>, Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]>, Alissa Cooper 
<[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: IESG review of draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op

    All, 

    We’ve just published a -10 version of draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op which we 
hope addresses the outstanding DISCUSS’s for this document (in addition to 
responses provided in the emails of March 4th) and the other comments from the 
IESG review. 

    Ben/Alissa - since you both hold a DISCUSS on this document could you 
please re-read the emails and review the document to see if these 
changes/responses address your concerns?

    The main changes are:

    1) In earlier versions of the BCP document there were references to some 
new sections that appeared only in draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis but that is no 
longer the case so this version of draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op does the following:

      * converts the reference in Section 3 (Scope) from 
draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis to the original RFC7626
      * converts the reference to RFC7626 to an Informative reference
      * removes the three direct reference to draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis in 
the text. They are very generic threats (passive surveillance, attacks on 
client resolver configuration and privacy of client IP addresses) and are all 
covered in RFC7626.

    2) Clarify that the DROP statement outline is non-normative and add some 
further qualifications about content as requested.

    3) Update the wording on data sharing to remove explicit discussion of 
consent in the Introduction and Section 5.3.3

    4) Move table in section 5.2.3 to an appendix

    5) Move section 6.2 to an appendix

    We are aware that the membership of the IESG has changed since the original 
review and so would like to request that the AD clarify what is now required in 
terms of further review to move this draft forward.

    Best regards

    Sara



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

Reply via email to