Subject: [DNSOP] The DNSOP document list; request for reviewers

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 13:27:14 -0700

Greetings. Wearing my spiffy new WG Secretary hat (which looks completely different from Suzanne's and Tim's hats!), I'd like folks to review the WG document list at:

http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/dnsop/doclist.html

I have a specific request that will hope the WG chairs: Let me know if you're willing to review a document that has few or no one in the "Reviewers" column. This kind of commits you to read the current draft, to at least read the diffs of the draft as it progresses, and to do a complete read again during WG Last Call. This information helps the WG chairs know what drafts should and should not be part of the WG charter.

If you want to discuss any particular draft in the WG, don't respond to this message, of course. Start a new thread, hopefully with the draft name in it. I'll try to track the level of discussion based on those threads.

Feel free to let me know if you have any secretary-ish questions. Any chair-ish questions ("when will you move Draft X forwards", "when will the WG LC on Draft Y be over", "can I present Draft X at the next IETF meeting", ...) go to the chairs or to the list.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: "Hosnieh Rafiee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 22:34:24 +0200

Hi,

During Intarea session as far as I can remember (probably others can also
remember this.. the one who attended my presentation in last IETF), Suzanne
raised this question that why a draft related to DNSOP is in intarea. 

Maybe now it is a good timing to raise this question that whether or not
DNSOP WG wants to accept to work on this draft or whether wants to leave it
to intarea. If it supposed to discuss in DNSOP then it needs to be in the
list of working items in the links of documents. Please share your opinions.

In both mailinglist, there are some discussions regarding this draft and I
tried to keep the discussion on both mailinglists.

A short history of this draft.
This draft was related to DNSEXT and active since IETF 85.  It supposed to
address the last miles of internet and focuses on secure authentication and
automation of this process. During this time, several people reviewed this
draft (most reviewed was offlist ) and a few was on the mailinglist. 

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rafiee-intarea-cga-tsig/ 

Thanks,
Best,
Hosnieh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DNSOP [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 10:27 PM
> To: dnsop
> Subject: [DNSOP] The DNSOP document list; request for reviewers
> 
> Greetings. Wearing my spiffy new WG Secretary hat (which looks completely
> different from Suzanne's and Tim's hats!), I'd like folks to review the WG
> document list at:
> 
> I have a specific request that will hope the WG chairs: Let me know if
you're
> willing to review a document that has few or no one in the "Reviewers"
> column. This kind of commits you to read the current draft, to at least
read the
> diffs of the draft as it progresses, and to do a complete read again
during WG
> Last Call. This information helps the WG chairs know what drafts should
and
> should not be part of the WG charter.
> 
> If you want to discuss any particular draft in the WG, don't respond to
this
> message, of course. Start a new thread, hopefully with the draft name in
it. I'll
> try to track the level of discussion based on those threads.
> 
> Feel free to let me know if you have any secretary-ish questions. Any
chair-ish
> questions ("when will you move Draft X forwards", "when will the WG LC on
> Draft Y be over", "can I present Draft X at the next IETF meeting", ...)
go to the
> chairs or to the list.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:05:29 -0700

<no hat>

> list of working items in the links of documents. Please share your opinions.

Not in DNSOP. It is not about DNS operations; it is supposedly about privacy of DNS queries. (I say "supposedly" because, even after 11 drafts, it is still completely unclear what needs to exist before this proposal can work.) I'm not at all convinced it belongs in INTAREA either.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: "Hosnieh Rafiee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:49:13 +0200

> > Maybe now it is a good timing to raise this question that whether or
> > not DNSOP WG wants to accept to work on this draft or whether wants to
> > leave it to intarea. If it supposed to discuss in DNSOP then it needs
> > to be in the list of working items in the links of documents. Please
share
> your opinions.
> 
> Not in DNSOP. It is not about DNS operations; it is supposedly about
privacy of
> DNS queries. (I say "supposedly" because, even after 11 drafts, it is
still
> completely unclear what needs to exist before this proposal can work.)

The problem is that I have several times explained in the mailinglist the
purpose. Also in last versions, some reviewers also explained how this draft
can be useful to secure the last miles of the internet. When  folks did not
read the draft, they could not know what this draft is used for or what it
supposed to address. So, judging it before reading it doesn't seem to be
correct. If you followed the mailinglist from the earliest version you would
find out that the main focus of this draft was only secure authentication
and automation for this process as much as possible. IN other word,
addressing the last miles of the internet where TSIG or DNSSEC are unable to
easily address. All the requirements explained in the draft and how to
easily handle them incase some of the requirements are not available was
also explained in the draft. Let me give you an example, One example is
about IPv6 and in case the node doesn't support SeND. The privacy section
was added when I was convinced about DNS privacy. But not since I am no
longer convinced because I say that if the other traffic supposed to be not
encrypted then DNS privacy does not help. This is the case that I only
changed it to optional possibility that this draft can support without any
extra efforts and with the same way that it supports secure authentication
and automate this process.
About the versioning of this draft, that is because the reviewers of that
had different taste. Some asked to add comparison of this or that, some
others said to bring this section to top and change the place of this
section to down. So, if you check the Diffs you would see what are the
differences versions that is more on organizations rather than the whole
idea behind it .  

To summarize; the main contribution and focus of this draft from beginning
was/is only secure authentication and automation of this process where TSIG
or DNSSEC might not easily handle. This is during DDNS especially for PTR
record or other scenarios explained in the draft. It is only an assistant
mechanism to remove the gap as much as possible in first point of trust.
The section that most people have problem (or problem statement) is because
it appears to me that there are different opinions on the organization of
the drafts. Some like the old organization of this draft, some say if I add
this it would be clear or if I add that it would be clearer. In any case I
welcome all inputs and tried to apply them. I also sometimes updated the
draft in a short period of time that caused many versions due to the fact I
found some editorial mistake left during review process of the one who were
helping me improve the language.

I'm
> not at all convinced it belongs in INTAREA either.
> 

So now again, the same question. if it doesn't belong to DNSOP while it
appears it can be (as far as I can remember Suzanne (sorry if I spelled it
incorrectly) in my last IETF meeting, during my presentation in intarea,
said that why this draft is in Intarea and this is the work should be done
in DNS area...)) and you say it is not related to neither DNSOP nor Intarea,
then where is its place? Where the drafts should go when DNSEXT is no longer
available and this draft belonged to there?

Thanks,
Best,
Hosnieh