Hi Eric, Same as what Paul said. Thank you
Original message From: Paul Hoffman
Date: 7/17/23 6:49 AM (GMT-08:00) To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)"
Cc: d...@fifthhorseman.net, Joey Salazar
, Brian Haberman ,
dns-privacy@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ext] [dns-privacy] WGLC :
On Jul 17, 2023, at 2:59 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
wrote:
>
> Daniel, Joey, Paul,
>
> As I am doing my AD review, may I check with the 3 authors whether they are
> aware of any IPR behind the one cited by Brian below ?
>
> Thanks, in advance,
I responded to the chairs that I didn't know of
On Jun 30, 2023, at 9:08 AM, Florian Obser wrote:
>
> A recursive resolver implementing this draft will probe on 853 without
> RD set. ns1.example.com will respond with refused. The recursive
> resolver will answer SERVFAIL.
>
> At least that's how I'm reading 4.6.9. R is successful, (it's not
Apologise for the late response, I'm slowly working through a huge pile
of emails.
On 2023-06-24 22:17 UTC, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2023, at 10:08 AM, Florian Obser wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-06-12 19:48 UTC, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> On Jun 12, 2023, at 1:46 AM, Florian Obser wrote:
On Jun 14, 2023, at 10:08 AM, Florian Obser wrote:
>
> On 2023-06-12 19:48 UTC, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 2023, at 1:46 AM, Florian Obser wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2023-06-10 22:48 UTC, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jun 10, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Philip Homburg
wrote:
>
>> In such a
On 2023-06-12 19:48 UTC, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2023, at 1:46 AM, Florian Obser wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-06-10 22:48 UTC, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> On Jun 10, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Philip Homburg
>>> wrote:
> In such a case, resolvers following
> this protocol will look for
On Jun 12, 2023, at 1:46 AM, Florian Obser wrote:
>
> On 2023-06-10 22:48 UTC, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Philip Homburg
>> wrote:
>>>
In such a case, resolvers following
this protocol will look for authoritative answers to ports 53 and
853 on that
From: Tim Wicinski
Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 9:44 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: paul.hoff...@icann.org; dns-privacy@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WGLC :
draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
On 2023-06-10 22:48 UTC, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Philip Homburg
> wrote:
>>
>>> In such a case, resolvers following
>>> this protocol will look for authoritative answers to ports 53 and
>>> 853 on that system, and the system would need to be able to
>>> differentiate
On Jun 10, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Philip Homburg
wrote:
>
>> In such a case, resolvers following
>> this protocol will look for authoritative answers to ports 53 and
>> 853 on that system, and the system would need to be able to
>> differentiate queries for recursive answers from queries for
>>
> In such a case, resolvers following
> this protocol will look for authoritative answers to ports 53 and
> 853 on that system, and the system would need to be able to
> differentiate queries for recursive answers from queries for
> authoritative answers.
For lack of a better term, I use the word
Scott
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 1:42 PM Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>
>
> [SAH] We might be disagreeing on the nature of experimentation, but I most
> definitely provided examples of specific, measurable metrics that could be
> used to evaluate an experiment:
>
>
>
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 3:44 PM Hollenbeck, Scott
wrote:
> *[SAH] The IESG deliberately chartered this working group to “Investigate
> potential solutions for adding confidentiality to DNS exchanges involving
> authoritative servers” in an Experimental manner. As Brian noted, that’s a
> binding
Here is my first cut of wording for a new operational considerations section to
deal with systems that are both recursive and authoritative on port 853.
Comments are welcome.
As recursive resolvers implement this protocol, authoritative servers will see
more probing on port 853 of IP addresses
> -Original Message-
> From: dns-privacy On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 10:52 AM
> To: dns-privacy@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WGLC :
> draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-
> probing
>
> Caution: This em
I'm hearing a bit of support for the proposal of changing the WG charter, but
more support for not changing the charter and issuing the protocol as
experimental. There have been no proposals for specific metrics for how to
judge the experiment, so it is likely to be "two years, add some
From: Rob Sayre
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 6:11 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: paul.hoff...@icann.org; dns-privacy@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WGLC :
draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 2:05 PM Hollenbeck, Scott
wrote:
>
> On Jun 6, 2023, at 8:42 PM, Rob Sayre wrote
>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 11:23 AM Hollenbeck, Scott 40verisign@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Measurement of CPU and memory use between Do53 and DoT or DoQ.
>> Measurement of query
On Jun 8, 2023, at 6:07 AM, Philip Homburg
wrote:
> Correct. Port 853 is in use on the addresses used by some
> authoritative servers to serve the role of client-facing recursive resolver.
>
> And that will certainly confuse any recursive resolver that tries to implement
> this draft.
Thank
On Jun 7, 2023, at 11:42 PM, Florian Obser wrote:
> Up-thread Stéphane reported ns1.eu.org as an example. Open resolver on
> 853 and authority for eu.org on 53:
>
> | Also, currently, regarding the possible warning to system
> | administrators about the need for 53 and 853 to be in sync, we
> |
In your letter dated Wed, 7 Jun 2023 23:12:21 + you wrote:
>> The experiment could just be to gain operational experience. We can be up=
>front
>> that we don't know what will happen, and encourage people to be careful.
>
>That's true with every new protocol from the IETF. It would be good to
On 2023-06-07 23:12 UTC, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2023, at 1:05 AM, Philip Homburg
> wrote:
>>
>>> We still have time to add those known operational considerations.
>>> In fact, we should be listing those even if this is an experimental
>>> RFC.
>>
>> The experiment could just be to
On Jun 7, 2023, at 1:05 AM, Philip Homburg
wrote:
>
>> We still have time to add those known operational considerations.
>> In fact, we should be listing those even if this is an experimental
>> RFC.
>
> The experiment could just be to gain operational experience. We can be upfront
> that we
Hi Paul,
On second read, it is better if I address the whole section.
The more correct version of the changes is the following:
Text in "4.6.2. Receiving a Response over Do53" could change
FROM
--
If Q is not in Do53-queries[X]:
On Jun 6, 2023, at 8:42 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
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.
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 11:23 AM Hollenbeck, Scott
Hi all,
As for the experimental/standard discussion I have a maybe naive
observation, but if this draft is experimental and the experiment
succeeds (whatever succeeds means, in my view gathering useful
operational experience and paving the road for DoT/DoQ on
authoritatives) I don't expect
> We still have time to add those known operational considerations.
> In fact, we should be listing those even if this is an experimental
> RFC.
The experiment could just be to gain operational experience. We can be upfront
that we don't know what will happen, and encourage people to be careful.
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 11:23 AM Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> Measurement of CPU and memory use between Do53 and DoT or DoQ.
> Measurement of query response rates between Do53 and DoT or DoQ.
> Measurement of server authentication successes and failures.
> Measurement and descriptions of observed
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 11:05 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WGLC :
> draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-
> probing
>
> Caution: This
On Jun 6, 2023, at 8:06 AM, Philip Homburg
wrote:
>
>> One large problem with publishing a protocol as "experimental" is
>> there is not objective way to exit that status. There are no criteria
>> that say "this experiment succeeded" or "this experiment failed".
>>
>> It will take much less
> One large problem with publishing a protocol as "experimental" is
> there is not objective way to exit that status. There are no criteria
> that say "this experiment succeeded" or "this experiment failed".
>
> It will take much less IETF effort to fix the charter now than it
> will to move the
On Jun 6, 2023, at 7:49 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> [SAH] The criteria to conduct the experiment and measure the outcome could be
> documented in the current draft.
Please propose such criteria. I ask because I feel that the likely criteria (at
least one resolver implementation, one server
> -Original Message-
> From: dns-privacy On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 9:44 AM
> To: dns-privacy@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WGLC :
> draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-
> probing
>
> Caution: This em
On Jun 5, 2023, at 8:12 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
>
> Tim & I checked in with our AD on this. Given that the charter text calls out
> Experimental, that is a binding agreement with the IESG.
>
> Our choices are simple:
>
> 1) publish as Experimental
> 2) re-charter
>
> If the intended
Behalf Of Paul
>> Hoffman
>> > Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 4:02 PM
>> > To: Tim Wicinski
>> > Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org
>> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WGLC :
>> draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-
>> > probing
>> >
>>
Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org
> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WGLC :
> draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-
> > probing
> >
> > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not
> click links
> > or open attachments unless you recognize the
> -Original Message-
> From: dns-privacy On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 4:02 PM
> To: Tim Wicinski
> Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WGLC :
> draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-
> probing
>
> Cauti
On Jun 5, 2023, at 12:45 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> The Chairs and Eric are working on the asumption that the document will be
> parked waiting for another implementation or two and some interopt testing
>
> However, we are usinfg this time for Early area reviews which will feel will
> bei
Scott
On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 3:36 PM Hollenbeck, Scott
wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dns-privacy On Behalf Of Paul
> Hoffman
> > Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 3:32 PM
> > To: Tim Wicinski
> > Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org
> > Subject:
> -Original Message-
> From: dns-privacy On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 3:32 PM
> To: Tim Wicinski
> Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WGLC :
> draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-
> probing
>
> Cauti
We have turned in -07, which covers Yorgos' issues (thanks!) and the int-dir
review (thanks!). We believe it is ready to move to IETF Review.
--Paul Hoffman
___
dns-privacy mailing list
dns-privacy@ietf.org
Hi Paul, authors,
On 26/05/2023 20:00, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Apr 14, 2023, at 11:14 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
All,
An update on the status of this draft. I have asked the authors to review
all the feedback, provide the mailing list with responses to the comments, and
then publish a
> -Original Message-
> From: dns-privacy On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2023 2:01 PM
> To: dns-privacy@ietf.org
> Cc: George Thessalonikefs
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WGLC :
> draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-
> probing
Thanks Paul ! We've been following the gitlab updates and do like the
updated version.
Brian, we should change the datatracker to say "Waiting for WG Chairs
go-ahead"
(me bossing Brian around)
tim
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 2:01 PM Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2023, at 11:14 AM, Brian
On Apr 14, 2023, at 11:14 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
>
> All,
> An update on the status of this draft. I have asked the authors to review
> all the feedback, provide the mailing list with responses to the comments,
> and then publish a new version.
We believe that -06 deals with all of the
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:03:17AM +,
Paul Hoffman wrote
a message of 8 lines which said:
> Thanks for the implementation work at the Hackathon, and thanks to
> Libor and Florian for the comments. Given that we are in WG Last
> Call, we (the co-authors) will deal with them in the coming
>
Thanks for the implementation work at the Hackathon, and thanks to Libor and
Florian for the comments. Given that we are in WG Last Call, we (the
co-authors) will deal with them in the coming weeks. We'd love to hear more
about implementations and additional issues; this will help the final
On Mar 22, 2023, at 12:39 PM, Wessels, Duane
wrote:
> 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".
There are plenty of
On Mar 12, 2023, at 8:43 AM, Brian Haberman 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
49 matches
Mail list logo
