Re: [dns-privacy] New version of draft-bortzmeyer-dprive-step-2

[Sara Dickinson]

> On 20 Nov 2016, at 16:36, Stephane Bortzmeyer  wrote:

> Here is a new version of draft-bortzmeyer-dprive-step-2 incorporating,
> I believe, all comments from the meeting in IETF 97 @ Seoul. Comments
> and discussions welcome.

Stephane, 

Just wondering what the status of draft-bortzmeyer-dprive-step is? I know it 
was discussed it in Soeul and there was an -05 version published last December 
but that has just expired a few days ago. Do you plan to do an update before 
Prague? 

Regards

Sara. 
___
dns-privacy mailing list
dns-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

Re: [dns-privacy] Padding policies draft

[Alexander Mayrhofer]

> > I agree, I think an update to the draft referencing dkg’s work is the
> > best way to proceed. This seems a good topic for discussion in Prague.
> >
> 
> I agree this would be a great discussion topic in Prague.

I'll spin a revision of the document, hopefully tomorroy - i think the doc 
itself would require like 5 mins airtime, though the discussion could get 
longer. dkg, would you want to join for a 3-min rehearsal of the work you did 
for NDSS?

best,
Alex

___
dns-privacy mailing list
dns-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

Re: [dns-privacy] Padding policies draft

[Tim Wicinski]

On 6/28/17 12:01 PM, Sara Dickinson wrote:


On 13 Jun 2017, at 08:37, Shane Kerr > wrote:


Alexander and all,

tl;dr Lets move forward with our best guesses now. dkg's
 recommendations seem good, but maybe we can tweak these based on
 expected maximum packet sizes.



I agree, I think an update to the draft referencing dkg’s work is the 
best way to proceed. This seems a good topic for discussion in Prague.




I agree this would be a great discussion topic in Prague.


tim

___
dns-privacy mailing list
dns-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

Re: [dns-privacy] Padding policies draft

[Sara Dickinson]

> On 13 Jun 2017, at 08:37, Shane Kerr  wrote:
> 
> Alexander and all,
> 
> tl;dr Lets move forward with our best guesses now. dkg's
>  recommendations seem good, but maybe we can tweak these based on
>  expected maximum packet sizes.


I agree, I think an update to the draft referencing dkg’s work is the best way 
to proceed. This seems a good topic for discussion in Prague. 

Sara. ___
dns-privacy mailing list
dns-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy