Re: [dns-privacy] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9250 (7883)

I agree with the errata - I believe this was an oversight in this PR: https://github.com/huitema/dnsoquic/pull/132/files that was created in response to review from the WG - it changed SHOULD -> MUST in section 5.4 but - it did not update the SHOULD in section 7.5 to be consistent at the same

Re: [dns-privacy] [IANA #1228441] Protocol Action: 'DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-11.txt)

t; Yes: DoT for the TCP port and QUIC/DTLS for the UDP port. >> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 6:39 AM Sara Dickinson >> wrote: >> >>> Just to clarify the request is remove the RFC8094 reference against >>> the >>> TCP port assignment (because the d

Re: [dns-privacy] [IANA #1228441] Protocol Action: 'DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-11.txt)

. > On 11 Apr 2022, at 14:15, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > > Let me loop in the TSV Area Directors as they may share my view that > DNS-over-DTLS should be kept in the IANA registry > > -éric > > > -Original Message- > From: Sara Dickinson > Date

Re: [dns-privacy] [IANA #1228441] Protocol Action: 'DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-11.txt)

Hi Amanda, Thank you - all the changes look correct but we have one minor request. Given that DNS-over-DTLS has been removed from the port 853 TCP entry ‘description' field, it seems correct to also remove the reference to RFC8094 from the ‘reference’ field for consistency. Could that change

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-00.txt

Hi All, As promised some time ago, here is my review of the current probing draft. I think the draft is in good shape and have the following general comments. 1) The DNS-over-QUIC draft has now passed IESG last call so one question is whether the document should be updated to treat DoT and

Re: [dns-privacy] Measurement & Padding Policy document

> On 25 Mar 2022, at 07:46, Alexander Mayrhofer > wrote: > > All, > > as mentioned in DPRIVE yesterday, > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8467 describes an > (experimental) padding policy that was based on measurements performed > by Daniel, and presented at NDSS in 2017. > >

Re: [dns-privacy] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: (with COMMENT)

> On 9 Mar 2022, at 23:11, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker > wrote: > > Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in

Re: [dns-privacy] Erik Kline's Yes on draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: (with COMMENT)

> On 8 Mar 2022, at 03:12, Erik Kline via Datatracker wrote: > > Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel

Re: [dns-privacy] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: (with COMMENT)

> On 10 Mar 2022, at 04:53, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker > wrote: > > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the

Re: [dns-privacy] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On 10 Mar 2022, at 01:46, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker > wrote: > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC

Re: [dns-privacy] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: (with COMMENT)

> On 9 Mar 2022, at 17:41, Martin Duke via Datatracker wrote: > > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC

Re: [dns-privacy] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: (with COMMENT)

> On 10 Mar 2022, at 14:25, John Scudder via Datatracker > wrote: > > John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC

Re: [dns-privacy] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: (with COMMENT)

> On 9 Mar 2022, at 14:49, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker > wrote: > > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and

Re: [dns-privacy] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: (with COMMENT)

> On 9 Mar 2022, at 11:35, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker > wrote: > > Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in

Re: [dns-privacy] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: (with COMMENT)

> On 7 Mar 2022, at 12:25, Robert Wilton via Datatracker > wrote: > > Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and

Re: [dns-privacy] Lars Eggert's Yes on draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: (with COMMENT)

> On 7 Mar 2022, at 11:10, Lars Eggert via Datatracker wrote: > > Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel

Re: [dns-privacy] Call for Adoption: draft-dkgjsal-dprive-unilateral-probing

Hi All, I support adoption of this draft by the WG. I think there is some work to do on a couple of sections and I’ll commit to providing a detailed review and PRs next week. But overall I see value in the WG adopting this draft which I believe can act as a good initial basis for

Re: [dns-privacy] Last Call Expired:

Hi Eric, The authors did ask Phillip directly if he had specific text changes he would like to see following his review during the first IETF Last Call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/Iu7lg5AvF9Mx4Tu-gflASArOF8A/ However we did not get a reply and so we attempted to address

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-09.txt

New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the DNS PRIVate Exchange WG of the IETF. > >Title : DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections >Authors : Christian Huitema >

Re: [dns-privacy] [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-08

> On 27 Jan 2022, at 20:06, Brian Trammell (IETF) wrote: > > Greetings, all, > > This proposal addresses my concerns about padding implementation; thanks! One > point below. Hi All, Many thanks for all the feedback on this. The PR is merged with the nits fixed. Regards Sara. > >> On

Re: [dns-privacy] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-08

Hi Brian, Thanks for the review, and as Christian said the padding question has been a point of discussion. I’m personally comfortable with a downref to RFC 8467 with text to support why this is done as you suggest. Multiple studies have shown just how easy traffic analysis is without any

Re: [dns-privacy] [IANA #1223683] Last Call: (DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections) to Proposed Standard

Hi Sabrina/Christian, The PR changes look good to me too, but I was thinking it would be very useful for future readers to also indicate that a review has happened. I have made a suggestion here: https://github.com/huitema/dnsoquic/pull/140/files#r792845998 Please let me know if this seems

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-08.txt

IETF. > >Title : DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections >Authors : Christian Huitema > Sara Dickinson > Allison Mankin > Filename: draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-08.txt > Pages

Re: [dns-privacy] AD review of draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic

> On 7 Jan 2022, at 07:38, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > > Hi Sara > > Thank you for your reply and the PRs. > > Some more comments below, look for EV> >> >> Section 6.4: same comment as above and also in other places. > >6.4 is proposed to change to a MUST for the use of padding

Re: [dns-privacy] AD review of draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic

Hi Eric, Many thanks for the review. I’ve created PR https://github.com/huitema/dnsoquic/pull/134 with proposed updates from your comments. > On 10 Dec 2021, at 06:42, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) > wrote: > > Dear authors, > > In the revised I-D, please also consider Martin Duke (the transport

Re: [dns-privacy] WGLC review for draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-05

> On 6 Dec 2021, at 19:55, Martin Duke wrote: > > Thank you for the changes in draft-07. > > from Christian's response: > > >> 2. (Sec 5.3.1) It doesn't quite sit right that STOP_SENDING can be ignored > >> if all data has been "sent". If some all has been sent but only some > >>

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-07.txt

> On 9 Dec 2021, at 09:25, Alexander Mayrhofer > wrote: > > Sara, Allison, Christian, > > I read through the latest revision of DoQ, and i'm afraid i do have a > comment regarding the padding section. More specifically, i think the > second "option" of section 6.4 should refer to the base

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-07.txt

is draft is a work item of the DNS PRIVate Exchange WG of the IETF. > >Title : DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections >Authors : Christian Huitema > Sara Dickinson > Allison Mankin > Filename

Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-06.txt

> On 21 Oct 2021, at 00:16, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > After reading the -06 somewhat carefully, I have only one question: why > should the DNS message ID be set to 0? If there's a good reason, is should be > listed in Section 5.2.1, but if there isn't, the requirement should be > removed. As

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-06.txt

aft is a work item of the DNS PRIVate Exchange WG of the IETF. > >Title : DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections >Authors : Christian Huitema > Sara Dickinson > Allison Mankin > Filename

Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] DPRIVE WGLC : https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/

> On 20 Oct 2021, at 15:55, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > As someone who doesn't pretend to understand the intricacies of Quic, and who > wants to see DoQ deployed: > > Is the issue here the organization of the 0RTT/early-data material in > draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic, or that the material is

Re: [dns-privacy] DPRIVE WGLC : https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/

> On 19 Oct 2021, at 22:28, Ben Schwartz > wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 5:16 PM Brian Haberman > wrote: > Hi Ben, > > On 10/19/21 9:14 AM, Ben Schwartz wrote: > > I do think the DoQ draft is harder to read because of the 0-RTT text, which > > is spread across several sections. > >

Re: [dns-privacy] DPRIVE WGLC : https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/

All, On the topic of moving 0-RTT text to the early data draft, I still agree with Christian’s position from a couple weeks ago. I don’t think separating that text makes the DoQ draft easier to read or implement and it could significantly delay the progress of DoQ. I think we have made good

Re: [dns-privacy] WGLC review for draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-05

> On 15 Oct 2021, at 01:47, Christian Huitema wrote: > > > On 10/14/2021 12:06 PM, Martin Duke wrote: >> Update: Rui Paulo points out that >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc7983bis-01 is >> the best reference for QUIC demultiplexing. >> >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-05.txt

ailable from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the DNS PRIVate Exchange WG of the IETF. > >Title : DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections >Authors : Christian Huitema > Sara Dickinson >

Re: [dns-privacy] [dprive] Specification of DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections (draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-04) - feedback

Hi Matthew, Sorry for a slow response - thanks for picking up the reference issues! One comment below. > On 22 Sep 2021, at 16:14, Quick, Matthew > wrote: > > Dear Christian et al, > > Hello - I hope this finds you well. Please find an additional section > suggestion and comments for

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-04.txt

the text on > 0-RTT moved into that document, so the working group can provide consistent > guidance on the use of 0-RTT, regardless of transport. > > --Ben Schwartz > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dprive-early-data > > On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 4:

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-04.txt

> >Title : Specification of DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections >Authors : Christian Huitema > Sara Dickinson > Allison Mankin > Filename: draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-04.txt > Pages :

Re: [dns-privacy] DoQ Use Case Review

> On 23 Aug 2021, at 20:29, Eric Orth > wrote: > > I don't think (1) should get much consideration unless a specific stub > implementation is found willing and interested in implementing it. For most > of the clients in this space, I would anticipate that they're either happy > with DoH

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-03.txt

s. > This draft is a work item of the DNS PRIVate Exchange WG of the IETF. > >Title : Specification of DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections >Authors : Christian Huitema > Sara Dickinson >

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-12.txt

RIVate Exchange WG of the IETF. > >Title : DNS Zone Transfer-over-TLS >Authors : Willem Toorop > Sara Dickinson > Shivan Sahib > Pallavi Aras >

Re: [dns-privacy] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On 19 May 2021, at 04:08, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > Hi Sara, > > On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 03:08:34PM +0100, Sara Dickinson wrote: Hi Ben, >>>> >>>> >>>> Section 8.4: >>>> >>>> OLD: >>>> " o t

Re: [dns-privacy] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On 5 May 2021, at 05:44, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker > wrote: > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and

Re: [dns-privacy] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with COMMENT)

> On 7 May 2021, at 03:44, Rob Sayre wrote: > > On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 4:58 AM Sara Dickinson <mailto:s...@sinodun.com>> wrote: > > > > (3) It wasn't clear to me whether the text in the appendix is meant to be > > normative or illustrative. I

Re: [dns-privacy] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On 6 May 2021, at 03:12, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > Hi Sara, > > On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 04:09:55PM +0100, Sara Dickinson wrote: Hi Ben, Thanks for the detailed response. > >>> >>> But, for concreteness: the text in Sections 8.4, 10.4, and 1

Re: [dns-privacy] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with COMMENT)

> On 6 May 2021, at 10:16, Robert Wilton via Datatracker > wrote: > > Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To

Re: [dns-privacy] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with COMMENT)

> On 6 May 2021, at 07:18, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker > wrote: > > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in

Re: [dns-privacy] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with COMMENT)

> On 5 May 2021, at 14:15, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker > wrote: > > Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses

Re: [dns-privacy] Erik Kline's Yes on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with COMMENT)

> On 5 May 2021, at 05:30, Erik Kline via Datatracker wrote: > > Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: Yes > > -- > COMMENT: >

Re: [dns-privacy] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Martin, Just to follow up, the following exchange was had with Ben, who also raised a DISCUSS on the topic of ALPN: > As Allison already stated in reply to Martin, the authors agree that the > `dot` ALPN should be used here, in light of the recent discussions. > > In terms of updating

Re: [dns-privacy] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with COMMENT)

> On 4 May 2021, at 21:02, John Scudder via Datatracker > wrote: > > John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and

Re: [dns-privacy] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with COMMENT)

> On 4 May 2021, at 22:44, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker > wrote: > > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To

Re: [dns-privacy] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On 5 May 2021, at 05:44, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker > wrote: > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and

Re: [dns-privacy] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with COMMENT)

> On 29 Apr 2021, at 01:09, Martin Thomson wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021, at 20:27, Sara Dickinson wrote: >> An early version of this specification proposed a XoT specific ALPN in >> order to distinguish this from a connection intended to perform >> recursive

Re: [dns-privacy] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with COMMENT)

> On 23 Apr 2021, at 21:54, Martin Duke via Datatracker > wrote: > > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and

Re: [dns-privacy] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-09

> On 17 Apr 2021, at 10:43, Dan Romascanu via Datatracker > wrote: > > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the

Re: [dns-privacy] AD review of draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-08

> On 18 Mar 2021, at 15:33, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > > Dear authors, > > Thank you (and extended thanks to the WG) for this document. > > Please find below my AD review of -08 revision of the document. Before > proceeding with the publication process, I will appreciate replies about

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-07.txt

ors : Willem Toorop > Sara Dickinson > Shivan Sahib > Pallavi Aras > Allison Mankin > Filename: draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-07.txt > Pages : 39 > Date

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-06.txt

ote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the DNS PRIVate Exchange WG of the IETF. > >Title : DNS Zone Transfer-over-TLS >Authors : Willem Toorop >

Re: [dns-privacy] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls

> On 27 Jan 2021, at 20:35, Peter van Dijk wrote: > > Hi Brian, > > On Mon, 2021-01-25 at 10:28 -0800, Brian Dickson wrote: >>> >>> However, there's one part that bothers me. The 'intermingling' of multiple >>> XFRs over a single connection (which is a SHOULD, not a MUST, so the >>>

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-05.txt

ailable from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the DNS PRIVate Exchange WG of the IETF. > >Title : DNS Zone Transfer-over-TLS >Authors : Willem Toorop > Sara Dickinson >

[dns-privacy] Call for Papers: NDSS Workshop on DNS Privacy 2021 - Submissions deadline extended to 8th Jan

Hi All, Please note that the submissions deadline for the NDSS Workshop on DNS Privacy 2021 has been extended until Friday 8th January 2021. Best regards Allison, Sara and Shivan (DNS Privacy Workshop chairs). -- Call for Papers: NDSS Workshop on DNS Privacy 2021

Re: [dns-privacy] Call for Papers: NDSS Workshop on DNS Privacy 2021

Apologies! The CFP is incorrectly linked, correct URL is https://dnsprivacy.org/wiki/x/C4DkAg <https://dnsprivacy.org/wiki/x/C4DkAg> > On 23 Nov 2020, at 17:15, Sara Dickinson wrote: > > With permission > —— > > > Hi All, > > Please consider submit

[dns-privacy] Call for Papers: NDSS Workshop on DNS Privacy 2021

With permission —— Hi All, Please consider submitting to or attending the NDSS DNS Privacy Workshop 2021: Measuring deployment and effectiveness of encrypted DNS Call for papers: https://dnsprivacy.org/wiki/x/C4DkAg We welcome submissions in

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-04.txt

ernet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the DNS PRIVate Exchange WG of the IETF. > >Title : DNS Zone Transfer-over-TLS >Authors : Willem Toorop > Sara Dickinson >

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-02.txt

> On 13 Jul 2020, at 23:35, Tony Finch wrote: > > I've had a read through and here are a few, er, I mean several things that > caught my eye: > Hi Tony, Many thanks for the detailed review! > > In the intro, I think it's too strong to say that RFC 5155 was "to > prevent" zone enumeration

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-02.txt

ternet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the DNS PRIVate Exchange WG of the IETF. > >Title : DNS Zone Transfer-over-TLS >Authors : Willem Toorop >

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-13.txt

--Original Message- > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer > Organization: NIC France > Date: Saturday, 11 July 2020 at 09:48 > To: Sara Dickinson > Cc: DNS Privacy Working Group , Eric Vyncke > > Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-13.txt >

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-13.txt

RIVate Exchange WG of the IETF. > >Title : Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service Operators > Authors : Sara Dickinson > Benno J. Overeinder > Roland M. van Rijswijk-Deij >

Re: [dns-privacy] Murray Kucherawy's Yes on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-12: (with COMMENT)

> On 8 Jul 2020, at 08:45, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker > wrote: > > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-12: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-12.txt

ernet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the DNS PRIVate Exchange WG of the IETF. > >Title : Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service Operators > Authors : Sara Dickinson > Benno J. Overeinder >

Re: [dns-privacy] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-10: (with DISCUSS)

rvice Operators > Authors : Sara Dickinson > Benno J. Overeinder > Roland M. van Rijswijk-Deij > Allison Mankin > Filename : draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-11.txt > Pages : 44 >

Re: [dns-privacy] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ben, Thanks for both your responses and for updating the DISCUSS! Best regards Sara. > On 29 Jun 2020, at 17:47, Sara Dickinson wrote: > > > >> On 28 Jun 2020, at 01:10, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker >> wrote: >> >> Benjamin Kaduk has e

Re: [dns-privacy] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-10: (with DISCUSS)

> On 28 Jun 2020, at 19:44, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker > wrote: > > Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-10: Discuss > > -- > DISCUSS: >

Re: [dns-privacy] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-10: (with COMMENT)

> On 28 Jun 2020, at 01:10, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker > wrote: > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and

Re: [dns-privacy] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On 27 Jun 2020, at 00:08, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > Hi Sara, > > My apologies as well that the response has taken so long. (As Éric noted, > this landed right as the COVID-19 craziness started, and I haven't fully > recovered yet.) Thanks Ben, yes the timing wasn’t great :-( Trimmed

[dns-privacy] 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

Re: [dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

> On 11 May 2020, at 13:56, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:34 AM Sara Dickinson <mailto:s...@sinodun.com>> wrote: > > > > On 7 May 2020, at 17:41, Eric Rescorla > <mailto:e...@rtfm.com>> wrote: > > > >

Re: [dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

> On 7 May 2020, at 17:41, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > Extensively trimming: > > To be honest, this thread has gotten so long that I've lost > track of the various changes being proposed, so here's > my comments on the text as a whole. > To be honest, I really thought we had pretty much

[dns-privacy] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-09.txt

ns-privacy@ietf.org <mailto:dns-privacy@ietf.org> > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the DNS PRIVate Exchange WG of the IETF. > > Title : Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service Operator

Re: [dns-privacy] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-05.txt

Hi All, To move this draft forward, this update addresses comments made during the IETF LC including: * All general comments * Section re-numbering as suggested by Vittorio Bertola * The most recently suggested text for Section 6.1.1.2 - Ekr could you please confirm if you are now happy with

Re: [dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

Hi Ekr, Could you comment on the latest proposed text below? I believe this is the last comment to resolve from the IETF LC on this draft... Best regards Sara. > On 20 Apr 2020, at 11:41, Sara Dickinson wrote: > > > >> On 9 Apr 2020, at 15:35, Eric Rescorla >

Re: [dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

> On 9 Apr 2020, at 15:35, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:36 AM Sara Dickinson <mailto:s...@sinodun.com>> wrote: > > >> On 9 Apr 2020, at 14:24, Eric Rescorla > <mailto:e...@rtfm.com>> wrote: >> > >

Re: [dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

> On 9 Apr 2020, at 14:24, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >> >> How about making the last sentence a little more specific instead: >> >> If not, then (depending on the application and transport used for DNS >> queries) users should take note that they may not be able to inspect the DNS >>

Re: [dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

ontrol > does not guarantee consistent application control. > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:13 PM Sara Dickinson <mailto:s...@sinodun.com>> wrote: > > >> On 7 Apr 2020, at 16:47, Eric Rescorla > <mailto:e...@rtfm.com>> wrote: >> >> >>

Re: [dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

> On 7 Apr 2020, at 16:47, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 8:40 AM Vittorio Bertola > <mailto:vittorio.bert...@open-xchange.com>> wrote: > >> Il 07/04/2020 17:23 Eric Rescorla mailto:e...@rtfm.com>> ha >> scritto: &g

Re: [dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

> Begin forwarded message: > > From: Eric Rescorla > Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice: > > Date: 9 March 2020 at 15:01:09 GMT > To: Sara Dickinson > Cc: Brian Dickson , "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" > , "dprive-cha...@ietf.or

Re: [dns-privacy] Status of draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis ?

> On 2 Apr 2020, at 17:01, bortzmeyer+i...@nic.fr wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 01:44:20PM +, > Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote > a message of 67 lines which said: > >> First, I hope that you and your relatives are safe in those days... > > No problem here. Luckily all is well here

Re: [dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

> On 6 Mar 2020, at 13:32, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:16 AM Sara Dickinson <mailto:s...@sinodun.com>> wrote: > > >> On 29 Feb 2020, at 02:03, Eric Rescorla > <mailto:e...@rtfm.com>> wrote: >> &g

Re: [dns-privacy] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: (with COMMENT)

> On 4 Mar 2020, at 18:44, Ben Schwartz wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 8:32 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: > >> >> >> On 6 Feb 2020, at 16:52, Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker >> wrote: >> >> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballo

Re: [dns-privacy] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: (with COMMENT)

> On 4 Mar 2020, at 21:32, Barry Leiba wrote: > > Hi, Sara, and thanks for the response. > >>> — Section 5.1.1 — >>> >>> o DNS-over-TLS [RFC7858] and [RFC8310]. >>> o DoH [RFC8484]. >>> >>> There’s no reason to hyphenate the former, and the latter should also be >>> expanded here: >>>

Re: [dns-privacy] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: (with COMMENT)

> On 4 Mar 2020, at 13:54, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > > > >> On Mar 4, 2020, at 8:31 AM, Sara Dickinson wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 6 Feb 2020, at 05:33, Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker >>> wrote: >>> >>> Suresh Krishnan

Re: [dns-privacy] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: (with COMMENT)

> On 4 Mar 2020, at 13:37, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > > Hi Sara, > > Thanks for you replies. See below. > > >> On 4. Mar 2020, at 14:30, Sara Dickinson wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 31 Jan 2020, at 10:45, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatra

Re: [dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

> On 3 Mar 2020, at 11:34, Vittorio Bertola > wrote: > > >> Il 02/03/2020 16:16 Sara Dickinson ha scritto: >> >> Suggest: >> >> "For users to have the ability to inspect and control the >> application-specific DNS settings

Re: [dns-privacy] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: (with COMMENT)

> On 6 Feb 2020, at 05:33, Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker > wrote: > > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To

Re: [dns-privacy] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-07

> On 10 Feb 2020, at 10:36, Mohit Sethi M wrote: > > Hi Sara, > > I understand the desire to get this done with. However, I have some further > comments in-line: > > On 1/24/20 5:29 PM, Sara Dickinson wrote: >> Mohit, >> >> I’m out of the o

Re: [dns-privacy] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: (with COMMENT)

> On 6 Feb 2020, at 16:52, Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker > wrote: > > Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and

Re: [dns-privacy] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: (with COMMENT)

> On 5 Feb 2020, at 08:30, Barry Leiba via Datatracker wrote: > > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines.

Re: [dns-privacy] Deborah Brungard's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: (with COMMENT)

> On 5 Feb 2020, at 21:11, Deborah Brungard via Datatracker > wrote: > > Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To

Re: [dns-privacy] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: (with COMMENT)

> On 5 Feb 2020, at 02:08, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker > wrote: > > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC

  1   2   3   >