Subject: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles-08.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 09:37:39 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the DNS PRIVate Exchange of the IETF.

        Title           : Authentication and (D)TLS Profile for DNS-over-(D)TLS
        Authors         : Sara Dickinson
                          Daniel Kahn Gillmor
                          Tirumaleswar Reddy
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles-08.txt
	Pages           : 26
	Date            : 2017-01-18

Abstract:
   This document discusses Usage Profiles, based on one or more
   authentication mechanisms, which can be used for DNS over Transport
   Layer Security (TLS) or Datagram TLS (DTLS).  This document also
   specifies new authentication mechanisms - it describes several ways a
   DNS client can use an authentication domain name to authenticate a
   DNS server.  Additionally, it defines (D)TLS profiles for DNS clients
   and servers implementing DNS-over-(D)TLS.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles-08

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles-08

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Sara Dickinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:41:31 +0000

Hi All, 

Here is (finally) an updated draft with 2 main changes based on the recent reviews:

* Added a new section comparing all the Authentication Mechanisms
* Removed hard failure as an option for Opportunistic Usage profile

Regards

Sara.

> On 18 Jan 2017, at 17:37, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dns-privacy mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:14:36 -0800

Thanks! This version fixes the problem I brought up in WG Last Call, and 
I like the new table as well.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:46:26 -0500

Hi,

Only two months late, I have managed at last to look at this.  I think
I may have an overcommit problem.

Anyway, this document is totally ready to proceed and should do so as
soon as possible.  Good work.

One tiny thing in the event the editors have another reason to open an
editing window: the definition of "DNS server" wouldn't be hurt if the
sentence, "For emphasis, in this document the term does not apply to
authoritative servers," or something like that.  The document in
general is clear about this, but it's an unusual definition of "DNS
server" even though I know we all use it that way when talking about
"the recursive server" in any informal context.  I do not think this
is terribly important, but it might help a few people.

Best regards, and apologies for my tardy review,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 18:29:22 -0500

> soon as possible.  Good work.

Thank you -- we believe that the most recent version captures all
outstanding issues, and is done (and,. yes, like Paul mentioned, the
table is useful).
Huge thanks to the authors for working through all this, and
integrating the changes / suggestions.

I just realized that the datatracker still says "In WGLC" -- I'll go
press the "Done" button.
Tim is shepherding, but is a little swamped at the moment; he'll have
the shepherd written up soon and then we toss it over the wall at the
IESG.

> is terribly important, but it might help a few people.

This seems a minor enough change that the authors can incorporate
during any requested IETF/IESG/RFC Editor edits....

Thank you for your comments.
W

-- 
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

---

From: Sara Dickinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:01:41 +0000

> On 20 Jan 2017, at 23:29, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 

Many thanks for the review - I agree this is a good clarification. 

> during any requested IETF/IESG/RFC Editor edits....

I’ve updated the working document so that text will be in the next revision.

Thanks

Sara.