[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IANA action state changed to "RFC-Ed-Ack" Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IANA action state changed to "Waiting on RFC Editor" Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IANA action state changed to "In Progress" Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IANA action state changed to "Waiting on Authors" Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IANA action state changed to "In Progress" Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: Approved-announcement to be sent (The previous state was Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup) After verifying that the Alvaro & Francesca COMMENT on section 5.3.3 is indeed fixed in this version. Datatracker URL:

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

We just published a new version of the draft, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/. We believe this new version addresses the comments received during IESG review. The changes were done in a series of pull request in our depot, visible here:

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

Pull request https://github.com/huitema/dnsoquic/pull/159 addresses the second comment from Francesca's review, and the similar comment from Alvaro's review. It provides an alternative to "SHOULD forcibly abort the connection using QUIC's CONNECTION_CLOSE mechanism", by specifying that peers

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

I have entered issues in our repo for all the reviews by IESG members. Ben Kaduk submitted an editorial PR, and it was accepted. There is another PR being processed to address the clarification on usage of 0RTT required by Ben and Lars -- https://github.com/huitema/dnsoquic/pull/158. Please

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

Dear authors, The revised I-D should mainly address Francesca Palombini's 2nd COMMENT point (which was also raised by Alvaro Retana). Both of them told me that they were about to raise a blocking DISCUSS on this specific point, so let's address is. It is mainly about either changing a SHOULD

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed (The previous state was IESG Evaluation) Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IANA review state changed to "IANA OK - Actions Needed" Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IANA review state changed to "IANA - Not OK" Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: Last Call Requested (The previous state was Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup) As RFC 8467 is now a normative reference and as the text of section 6.4 (padding) has changed since the first IETF Last Call, I am requested a second IETF Last Call. Datatracker URL:

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed (The previous state was Waiting for Writeup) Need to address the TSVART review, downref added to RFC 8467 (will require another IETF LC possibly 1 week long only) Datatracker URL:

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IANA review state changed to "IANA - Not OK" Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: Last Call Requested (The previous state was AD Evaluation::AD Followup) Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed (The previous state was AD Evaluation) Sent comments to the WG list: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/mJ99vYiHiHuAFHxg3l5sioS8mHk/ Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: AD Evaluation (The previous state was Publication Requested) Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IANA action state changed to "No IANA Actions" Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IANA action state changed to "In Progress" Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed (The previous state was IESG Evaluation::AD Followup) Alissa Cooper's DISCUSS points are still to be addressed. Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed (The previous state was IESG Evaluation) Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org

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

While it might be too late to debate this point, I would say the paragraph that begins with "Users will only be aware of..." and the following bullet points could be dropped. It seems to state that users can't change settings if there are no settings three times (this seems obvious). One bullet

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: IESG Evaluation (The previous state was Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup) Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed (The previous state was Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup) Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list

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

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:58 PM Christian Huitema wrote: > > On 5/13/2020 3:19 PM, Andrew Campling wrote: > > I also note that RFC 3552 (Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security > Considerations) includes section 2.3 on systems security so does indeed > look beyond the network. So, alongside

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

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:13 PM Ben Schwartz wrote: > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:15 AM Vittorio Bertola 40open-xchange@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> >> Il 11/05/2020 21:35 Christian Huitema ha scritto: >> >> I found the discussion of application embedded resolvers bizarre. It >> speaks of

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

On 5/13/2020 3:19 PM, Andrew Campling wrote: > I also note that RFC 3552 (Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security > Considerations) includes section 2.3 on systems security so does > indeed look beyond the network.  So, alongside RFC 7754 and RFC 6973, > there seem to be a good number of

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

On 13/05/2020 11:27 Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> Il 12/05/2020 17:18 Stephane Bortzmeyer >> mailto:bortzme...@nic.fr>> ha scritto: >> >> Yes, and I think I know now the root of the problem. 7626bis tries to >> go too far and, instead of discussing the DNS protocol and its privacy >> issues,

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

At 13 May 2020 18:10, S Moonesamy wrote: >Hi Ben, >At 08:12 PM 12-05-2020, Ben Schwartz wrote: >>That seems quite contentious to me. Decentralization of the DNS is >>_also_ a privacy threat: running your own recursive leaks your IP to >>every authoritative (far worse than ECS!), pinning

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

Hi Ben, At 08:12 PM 12-05-2020, Ben Schwartz wrote: That seems quite contentious to me. Decentralization of the DNS is _also_ a privacy threat: running your own recursive leaks your IP to every authoritative (far worse than ECS!), pinning yourself to a unique recursive makes you uniquely

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

> Il 12/05/2020 17:18 Stephane Bortzmeyer ha scritto: > > Yes, and I think I know now the root of the problem. 7626bis tries to > go too far and, instead of discussing the DNS protocol and its privacy > issues, now goes into end hosts and discuss what is done inside the > machine, and what

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

> Il 13/05/2020 05:12 Ben Schwartz ha > scritto: > > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:15 AM Vittorio Bertola 40open-xchange@dmarc.ietf.org mailto:40open-xchange@dmarc.ietf.org > > wrote: > > > > We also know that centralization of the DNS is > potentially

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

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:35:11PM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote a message of 294 lines which said: > The paragraph in section 5.1 seems to imply that embedding a > recursive resolver in the end point or close to reduces the privacy > attack surface: Note that it was already in RFC 7626

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

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 02:14:43PM +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote a message of 144 lines which said: > Every time the authors put the effort to rewrite it once again > according to the comment, and every time a new comment comes in > saying that this is not enough. I admire their patience.

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

> Il 11/05/2020 21:35 Christian Huitema ha scritto: > > > I found the discussion of application embedded resolvers bizarre. It > speaks of applications in general, but the way the text is set-up appears to > be a specific dig against Mozilla. Look at the text: "popular applications

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

On 5/11/2020 7:27 AM, Sara Dickinson wrote: >> Well, the issue is that this text is being used to contrast >> application-specific settings to OS ones, so I'm not sure how not to >> get into it.  > > Suggest modify the text about the OS settings to: > > “ All major OS's expose the system DNS

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 > wrote: > > > > On 7 May 2020, at 17:41, Eric Rescorla > > wrote: > > > > Extensively trimming: > > > > To be honest, this thread has

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

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:34 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: > > > > 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

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

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

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. > "An increasing number of applications are offering > application-specific encrypted DNS resolution settings, rather than

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

April 2020 at 16:35 To: Sara Dickinson Cc: Eric Orth , "dns-privacy@ietf.org" , Vittorio Bertola , "dprive-cha...@ietf.org" , Eric Vyncke , "draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-...@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice: On Thu, Ap

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 > wrote: > > >> On 9 Apr 2020, at 14:24, Eric Rescorla > > wrote: >> > > > >>> >>> How about making the last sentence a little more

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

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:36 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: > > > 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

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:

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 4:00 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: > > > On 7 Apr 2020, at 17:22, Eric Orth wrote: > > "consistent application-level controls across the device" > > Right there is where followers of the misunderstanding will read this text > incorrectly. Browsers and other non-malicious

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

> On 7 Apr 2020, at 17:22, Eric Orth wrote: > > "consistent application-level controls across the device" > > Right there is where followers of the misunderstanding will read this text > incorrectly. Browsers and other non-malicious applications allowing control > does not guarantee

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

"consistent application-level controls across the device" Right there is where followers of the misunderstanding will read this text incorrectly. Browsers and other non-malicious applications allowing control does not guarantee consistent application control. On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:13 PM

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 > > wrote: > >> Il 07/04/2020 17:23 Eric Rescorla mailto:e...@rtfm.com>> ha >> scritto: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:38 AM Sara

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

It is currently a very common* misunderstanding that system or browser/application DNS configuration can somehow control malware resolution. Common enough that, IMO, any text on how to "control" or configure resolution or "disable" features like DoH should include at least a small clarification

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

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 8:40 AM Vittorio Bertola < vittorio.bert...@open-xchange.com> wrote: > > Il 07/04/2020 17:23 Eric Rescorla ha scritto: > > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:38 AM Sara Dickinson < s...@sinodun.com> wrote: > > The goal of this text is to enumerate for the end user the privacy >

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

> Il 07/04/2020 17:23 Eric Rescorla ha scritto: > > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:38 AM Sara Dickinson < s...@sinodun.com > mailto:s...@sinodun.com > wrote: > > > > The goal of this text is to enumerate for the end user > the privacy considerations of using such an

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

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:38 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: > > > 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 Dic

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] Datatracker State Update Notice:

Jim Reid wrote: > Could the people on this thread *please* trim their postings? Yes, more RFC 1855, please! Tony. -- .-_|\f.anthony.n.finch / \ McQuary ->*.--._/http://dotat.at/ v ___

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

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 2:14 PM Brian Dickson wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:14 PM Eric Rescorla wrote: > >> >> As I said, Chrome does its own name resolution and has for quite some >> time, using the resolvers configured into the system and then sending its >> own DNS packets. This used

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

Hi, Jim, I was planning on replying to you with a just-for-you trimmed version, but your email server refuses email I send (I use gmail... I know...), but yeah, I will in future trim the replies. Brian On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 2:19 PM Jim Reid wrote: > Could the people on this thread *please*

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

Could the people on this thread *please* trim their postings? It's hard to track the discussion when every email contains a jumbled set of a gazillion postings. Thanks. ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org

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

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:14 PM Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:18 PM Brian Dickson < > brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:01 AM Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 3:55 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: >>>

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

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:18 PM Brian Dickson wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:01 AM Eric Rescorla wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 3:55 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 6 Mar 2020, at 13:32, Eric Rescorla wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:16 AM Sara

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

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:01 AM Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 3:55 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: > >> >> >> On 6 Mar 2020, at 13:32, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:16 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 29 Feb 2020, at 02:03, Eric Rescorla

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

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 3:55 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: > > > On 6 Mar 2020, at 13:32, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:16 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: > >> >> >> On 29 Feb 2020, at 02:03, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 4:50 PM Brian Dickson < >>

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 > wrote: > > >> On 29 Feb 2020, at 02:03, Eric Rescorla > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 4:50 PM Brian Dickson >

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed (The previous state was In Last Call) Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org

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

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:16 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: > > > On 29 Feb 2020, at 02:03, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 4:50 PM Brian Dickson < > brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 3:15 PM Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb

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 in a similar fashion to the OS DNS >> settings, each

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

> 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 in a similar fashion to the OS DNS > settings, each application also needs to: > >o expose the default

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

> On 29 Feb 2020, at 02:03, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 4:50 PM Brian Dickson > wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 3:15 PM Eric Rescorla > wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:19 AM Sara Dickinson

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

Hiya, On 29/02/2020 00:49, Brian Dickson wrote: > And this risk is inversely proportional to the number of users of the > resolver. I don't think the above is a good description of the situation with DNS recursives. My own intuition is that the risk vs. percentage of users per recursive for a

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

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 4:50 PM Brian Dickson wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 3:15 PM Eric Rescorla wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:19 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 23 Jan 2020, at 13:53, Eric Rescorla wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 5:08 AM Sara Dickinson

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

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 3:15 PM Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:19 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: > >> >> >> On 23 Jan 2020, at 13:53, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 5:08 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: >> >> >> >> On 20 Jan 2020, at 22:37, Eric Rescorla wrote: >>

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

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:19 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: > > > On 23 Jan 2020, at 13:53, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 5:08 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: > > > > On 20 Jan 2020, at 22:37, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > Review comments attached: > > > COMMENTS >> S 3.1. >> >

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

> On 23 Jan 2020, at 13:53, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 5:08 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: > >> >> >> On 20 Jan 2020, at 22:37, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >> Review comments attached: >> >> >> COMMENTS >> S 3.1. >> > described above, and may not have any

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

All, Many apologies for the very slow follow up on this - I was out of the office for far longer than expected. I’ll follow up and have an update I-D available in the next couple of days. Sara. > On 4 Feb 2020, at 07:44, IETF Secretariat > wrote: > > IESG state changed: > > New State:

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

Hi Eric, There was the following comment during the Last Call: "18 of these points relate to text that is unchanged since the original RFC7626, I'll mark these as [RFC7626]. To avoid repetition I'll outline that since this text has already received two forms of consensus ..." The "two

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

Hi, While I don't want to obstruct progress on this draft, I do intend to write a draft that addresses my points and aims to obsolete rfc7626-bis. This topic can be contentious, so I don't have an eventual RFC as a goal (but that would be ok). thanks, Rob On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 11:44 PM Eric

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed (The previous state was Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup) To address the comments received during IETF Last Call. Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/

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

[- WG mailing list - secretariat] Dear authors [Sara no need for urgent reply], There were little reactions during the Last Call. Do you want to issue an revised ID or simply go ahead with the current revision ? With Rob Sayre's 45 points, a revised I-D is really required (and Sara has already

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup (The previous state was Waiting for AD Go-Ahead) Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IANA review state changed to "IANA OK - No Actions Needed" Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

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

Hi All, Please note that I will be out of the office next week and not reading email. I will continue to respond to IETF Last call comments on my return. Best regards Sara. > On 20 Jan 2020, at 21:45, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > > Thanks to Sara and Stéphane for the -04 revised I-D.

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

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 5:08 AM Sara Dickinson wrote: > > > On 20 Jan 2020, at 22:37, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > Review comments attached: > > > COMMENTS > S 3.1. > > described above, and may not have any confidentiality requirements.. > > However, the same is not true of a single

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

> Il 23/01/2020 14:08 Sara Dickinson ha scritto: > > I don’t disagree that this a desirable feature but since the remit of the > document is to describe the current situation, and this option is not > available today AFAIK I’m not sure it should be included. I suggested to Ekr > that text is

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

> On 21 Jan 2020, at 14:46, Vittorio Bertola > wrote: > > >> Il 20/01/2020 22:45 Eric Vyncke (evyncke) ha scritto: >> >> But, as section 3.5.1 ("in the recursive resolvers") raised a lot of >> discussions during the first IETF Last Call, and as the authors reacted to >> those comments by

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

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 6:46 AM Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > Il 20/01/2020 22:45 Eric Vyncke (evyncke) ha > scritto: > > > > But, as section 3.5.1 ("in the recursive resolvers") raised a lot of > discussions during the first IETF Last Call, and as the authors reacted to > those comments by

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

> Il 20/01/2020 22:45 Eric Vyncke (evyncke) ha scritto: > > But, as section 3.5.1 ("in the recursive resolvers") raised a lot of > discussions during the first IETF Last Call, and as the authors reacted to > those comments by deep changes in the text, let's have a new IETF Last Call > before

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

+last-call On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 2:37 PM Eric Rescorla wrote: > Review comments attached: > > > COMMENTS > S 3.1. > > described above, and may not have any confidentiality requirements.. > > However, the same is not true of a single transaction or a sequence > > of

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

Review comments attached: COMMENTS S 3.1. > described above, and may not have any confidentiality requirements. > However, the same is not true of a single transaction or a sequence > of transactions; that transaction is not / should not be public. A > typical example from

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

Thanks to Sara and Stéphane for the -04 revised I-D. After reading the -04, I think that most of the IETF Last Call comments are addressed (and consensus needs to be balanced -- even for informational document) and that the document sticks to facts. But, as section 3.5.1 ("in the recursive

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: Last Call Requested (The previous state was Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup) The previous last call raised several points. The authors have worked on those points and this new informational IETF draft has substantive changes; enough to go trigger a new IETF

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed (The previous state was Waiting for AD Go-Ahead) Revised I-D needed to address relevant comments received during the last call. Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: Waiting for AD Go-Ahead (The previous state was Waiting for Writeup) Waiting for authors' reply on Martin Thomson's review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/KGOMjN-W3_wywvZUZ12j-sAC6ps Datatracker URL:

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IANA review state changed to "IANA OK - No Actions Needed" Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: Last Call Requested (The previous state was AD Evaluation::AD Followup) Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed (The previous state was AD Evaluation) Some minor comments/nits sent by email to the authors. Revision is expected to have a clean Last Call. Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IESG state changed: New State: AD Evaluation (The previous state was Publication Requested) Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IANA action state changed to "No IC" Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

[dns-privacy] Datatracker State Update Notice:

IANA action state changed to "In Progress" Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy/ ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

  1   2   >