On 3/31/21 9:40 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > On 31/03/2021 14:32, Jim Reid wrote: >> >> >>> On 31 Mar 2021, at 14:05, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> RFC 7626 (the threat model and problem analysis that some people >>> claim is missing) is clear (section 2.5.2 for instance). >> >> Stephane, RFC7626 is 6 years old. It predates the DoH and DoT (and >> soon DoQ) specs. > > RFC7626 was IMO quite important in enabling those later > protocols, so that age and sequence are signs of success. > >> Some other risks have changed since 2015 too. >> >> It’s not your fault that fine RFC has been OBE. :-) > > I'm not sure what point you're making there tbh, but I > don't believe 7626 is OBE when it comes to considering > privacy issues arising from interactions between recursives > and TLDs, which is a big part of what we're discussing > here I hope.
And 7626bis is in the RFC Editor's queue... Brian
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
