On Mar 1, 2023, at 10:46 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott 
<[email protected]> wrote:
> After a recent-re-read of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing and its 
> normative dependencies, I have a strong belief that the draft describes more 
> of an experiment than a Proposed Standard.

All protocols before they are deployed are experiments.

> The reason we need "opportunistic" and "unilateral" actions is because there 
> are gaps in specification, implementation, and deployment of services for 
> recursive-authoritative encryption.

That is not what the WG decided. It decided that opportunistic was sufficient 
for some threat models. Other threat models have the gaps you discuss.

> Experimental status worked for QNAME minimization.

That's irrelevant.

> It can work here, too.

So could Informational; that is also irrelevant.

The definition for the Experimental maturity level, taken from RFC 2026, is:

4.2.1  Experimental

   The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that
   is part of some research or development effort.  Such a specification
   is published for the general information of the Internet technical
   community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
   editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
   adequate coordination with the standards process (see below).  An
   Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet
   research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working
   Group, or it may be an individual contribution.

This draft is not a research effort, nor is it a development effort. It is a 
protocol that can be used (and, to a limited extent, is already being used) on 
the Internet today.

> I also noticed that RFCs 7858 and 9250 are identified as informative 
> references. Section 3 says that an authoritative name server "MUST implement 
> at least one of DoT or DoQ on port 853". That's a normative requirement. Both 
> RFCs should be identified as normative references.

Thank you, that's a good catch! We will fix that in the new draft that should 
be coming out in a day or so.

--Paul Hoffman

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

Reply via email to