Re: [dns-privacy] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-dprive-dns-over-tls-01

[Tim Wicinski]

All,

The WGLC has finished, and it appears to be rough consensus on moving 
forward.  I want to touch base with my co-chair and AD on one issue, but 
I will work on the Shepherd write up over the next few days and submit 
it into the pipeline. I plan on mentioning the issues raised about 
waiting for other documents before moving forward in my shepherd notes.


tim


On 10/22/15 2:23 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:

Dear DPRIVE WG,

The authors of draft-ietf-dprive-dns-over-tls-01 have indicated that
they believe that the document is ready, and have asked for Working
Group Last Call.

The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dns-over-tls-01/

Please review this draft to see if you think it is ready for
publication and send comments to the DPRIVE list, clearly stating your
view.

We have chosen to run this WGLC during the IETF meeting, and have it
end after the meeting. This will allow us use meeting time to discuss
contentious WGLC issues (if any).
This will be a 3 week WGLC, and ends Thu 12-Nov-2015.


To satisfy RFC 6702 ("Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property
Rights (IPR)"):
Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-ietf-dprive-dns-over-tls-01?  If so, has this IPR been disclosed
in compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and
5378 for more details.)

Thanks,
Warren Kumari
(as DPRIVE WG co-chair)




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

Re: [dns-privacy] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-dprive-dns-over-tls-01

[Tim Wicinski]

On 11/13/15 8:22 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:



Just to be clear: do the chairs read the rough consensus to be that the
draft needs to remove Sections 3.2 and all of Section 4, and move them
to a new document?

--Paul Hoffman


Yes, I do (once I remembered).  I am circling back with the others,  but 
I believe this is the case.


I'm also waiting for the -02 before actioning.

tim

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

Re: [dns-privacy] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-dprive-dns-over-tls-01

[Paul Hoffman]

On 13 Nov 2015, at 3:31, Tim Wicinski wrote:

The WGLC has finished, and it appears to be rough consensus on moving 
forward.  I want to touch base with my co-chair and AD on one issue, 
but I will work on the Shepherd write up over the next few days and 
submit it into the pipeline. I plan on mentioning the issues raised 
about waiting for other documents before moving forward in my shepherd 
notes.


Just to be clear: do the chairs read the rough consensus to be that the 
draft needs to remove Sections 3.2 and all of Section 4, and move them 
to a new document?


--Paul Hoffman

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

Re: [dns-privacy] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-dprive-dns-over-tls-01

[Sara Dickinson]

> On 13 Nov 2015, at 16:39, Paul Hoffman  wrote:
> 
> On 13 Nov 2015, at 8:28, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> 
>> On 11/13/15 8:22 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Just to be clear: do the chairs read the rough consensus to be that the
>>> draft needs to remove Sections 3.2 and all of Section 4, and move them
>>> to a new document?
>>> 
>>> --Paul Hoffman
>> 
>> Yes, I do (once I remembered).  I am circling back with the others,  but I 
>> believe this is the case.


Ah, this isn’t my recollection. The proposed changes were much smaller, the 
order of a few sentences in section 4.2 just to update the authentication 
profile. The plan for the follow up document was to extend the authentication 
profiles not completely replace them (and the reference would not normative). 

Sara. 


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

Re: [dns-privacy] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-dprive-dns-over-tls-01

[Warren Kumari]

Doh. Messages passed in the ether.

W

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Paul Hoffman  wrote:
> Whoops, Sara is right and I was wrong. What the WG agreed to was in the
> slides in Yokohama:
>
> =
> Explicitly state that an upcoming document will define further
> authentication profiles
>   Draft in development, will be submitted ASAP
>
> This draft will document Opportunistic and briefly cite the risk-benefit for
> it
>
> This draft will provide a brief sketch of authentication in the case where
> there is a two-way active relationship between the client and the server
> (e.g. enterprise)
> =
>
> Unlike what I said a bit ago, we obviously can't pull out the current
> security requirements and point to a future document: that will never fly
> with the IESG (and nor should it).
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
>
> ___
> dns-privacy mailing list
> dns-privacy@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

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

Re: [dns-privacy] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-dprive-dns-over-tls-01

[Paul Hoffman]

Whoops, Sara is right and I was wrong. What the WG agreed to was in the 
slides in Yokohama:


=
Explicitly state that an upcoming document will define further 
authentication profiles

  Draft in development, will be submitted ASAP

This draft will document Opportunistic and briefly cite the risk-benefit 
for it


This draft will provide a brief sketch of authentication in the case 
where there is a two-way active relationship between the client and the 
server (e.g. enterprise)

=

Unlike what I said a bit ago, we obviously can't pull out the current 
security requirements and point to a future document: that will never 
fly with the IESG (and nor should it).


--Paul Hoffman

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