> On Mar 12, 2023, at 8:43 AM, Brian Haberman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> All,
> This starts a 2-week WGLC for draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-05.
> This call is to determine if the document is sufficiently complete to
> facilitate implementations and interoperability testing. Once that
> determination is made, the chairs will park this document in the datatracker
> with a state of "Waiting for Implementation" and we will await for the
> requested implementations and interoperability reports.
>
> The chairs will note that the document is currently marked as Proposed
> Standard and that there has been a suggestion to move it to Experimental. If
> you have an opinion on the status at this time, please include it in your
> feedback to the WG mailing list. We will revisit the status of the document
> before it gets advanced to our AD.
>
> This WGLC will end at midnight UTC on March 26, 2023.
>
> Regards,
> Brian & Tim
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> content is safe.
>
My primary concern with this draft is that, as written, it could
be interpreted as a requirement for DNS providers that operate
under contracts that use language such as "shall comply with relevant
existing RFCs". I'm not sure that was the authors' intention.
For example, section 3 says:
An authoritative server implementing the protocol described in this
document MUST implement at least one of DoT or DoQ on port 853.
I can think of a couple ways this guidance could be improved:
1. The document could be split into two separate documents for clients
and servers, and the server document could be given Experimental status.
2. Clarify that this protocol is optional for servers to deploy. For example:
The protocol described in this document is OPTIONAL for authoritative
servers. An authoritative server choosing to implement the
protocol described in this document MUST implement at least one
of DoT or DoQ on port 853.
Also as a point of semantics, when this document uses "implement"
I think maybe it really means "deploy"? I've always thought that
implementation is what developers do and deployment is what operators
do. That is the approach taken with RFCs 7766 (DNS Transport over
TCP - Implementation Requirements) and 9210 (DNS Transport over TCP
- Operational Requirements).
DW
_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
