Subject: [dns-privacy] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-lmo-dprive-phase2-requirements-00.txt

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 10:42:30 +0100

FYI - we've just posted the first rough cut of the DPRIVE Phase 2
requirements draft. This will be discussed during tomorrow's interim
meeting. I wish to say sorry for posting this so late, but i do hope
that you still find the time to review it before the meeting.

thanks!
Alex (on behalf of Jason, Benno, myself)

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:37 AM
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-lmo-dprive-phase2-requirements-00.txt
To: Jason Livingood <[email-masked]>, Benno Overeinder
<[email-masked]>, Alexander Mayrhofer
<[email-masked]>, Jason Livingood
<[email-masked]>, Benno Overeinder <[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-lmo-dprive-phase2-requirements-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Alexander Mayrhofer and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-lmo-dprive-phase2-requirements
Revision:       00
Title:          DNS Privacy Requirements for Exchanges between
Recursive Resolvers and Authoritative Servers
Document date:  2019-10-28
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          13
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lmo-dprive-phase2-requirements-00.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lmo-dprive-phase2-requirements/
Htmlized:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lmo-dprive-phase2-requirements-00
Htmlized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lmo-dprive-phase2-requirements

Abstract:
   This document provides requirements for adding confidentiality to DNS
   exchanges between recursive resolvers and authoritative servers.

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.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Vladimír Čunát <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:06:37 +0100

Hello.

> 4.5 End-User Policy Propagation

I think the client-subnet part here is fully covered by the current RFC
7871 already, but that seems an unimportant nitpick at this point.

--Vladimir