> On 7 Nov 2019, at 00:17, Christoph wrote:
>
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:> * "A DNS privacy service must be engineered
> for high availability."
>> I'm not in favor of this sentence. 1) It seems to despise small
>> resolvers managed by small organisations, while we need many diverse
>> DoT
> On 7 Nov 2019, at 15:57, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 01:16:29PM +,
> Sara Dickinson wrote
> a message of 241 lines which said:
>
>> The current usage is the result of a discussion on the very first
>> version of the draft (draft-dickinson-dprive-bcp-op-00,
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 01:16:29PM +,
Sara Dickinson wrote
a message of 241 lines which said:
> The current usage is the result of a discussion on the very first
> version of the draft (draft-dickinson-dprive-bcp-op-00, June 2018)
> and since then (limited) usage of RFC2119 language has
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:> * "A DNS privacy service must be engineered
for high availability."
> I'm not in favor of this sentence. 1) It seems to despise small
> resolvers managed by small organisations, while we need many diverse
> DoT and DoH resolvers, to avoid centralisation 2) Today,
> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer
> Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Second Working Group Last Call for
> draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op
> Date: 1 November 2019 at 10:38:31 GMT
> To: Tim Wicinski
> Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:24:45AM -0400,
> Tim Wicinski
On 11/1/19 11:38 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> * DROP is not a perfect acronym since the draft does not talk only
> about privacy but also about integrity ("result filtering", aka lying
> resolvers).
It's even possible to keep the acronym and just tweak the name, e.g. DNS
Recursive Operator
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:24:45AM -0400,
Tim Wicinski wrote
a message of 113 lines which said:
> This starts a Second Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op
Background: I run a small (very small) public DoH and DoT resolver,
and it has a DROP (a policy). If you want to read
The working group has given lots of feedback on this and the authors have
worked to address all these concerns. The last larger item was discussed and
resolved during our interim.
We want to run a 1 Week WGLC to confirm all outstanding items have been
resolved.
This starts a Second Working
