Subject: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles-03

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 20:18:46 -0700

This document seems ready for WG Last Call. The comments I have hear can 
be dealt with before or during WG Last Call.

--Paul Hoffman

=====

The following text from section 4.2 still seems wrong:
    Since Strict Privacy provides the strongest privacy guarantees it is
    preferable to Opportunistic Privacy.
Strict Privacy is only preferable to users who would rather have an 
unusable Internet connection: an Internet connection where every DNS 
lookup in every application fails. Currently, that size of that set of 
users is incredibly small, although it might grow over time. The 
sentence above could lead developers to implement Strict Privacy without 
also implementing Opportunistic Privacy to the detriment of the vast 
majority of current Internet users.

Proposed replacement:
    Strict Privacy provides the strongest privacy guarantees and 
therefore should always be implemented along with Opportunistic Privacy. 
The negative implications of the two types of privacy are so radically 
different (a possibly-unusable Internet service for Strict Privacy; 
complete control of DNS responses for Opportunistic Privacy) that 
neither option can be considered a good default for all users.

=====

I have a significant concern about the discussion of 
draft-ietf-dprive-dnsodtls, which is listed as an informational 
reference. That document seems to be stalled again, which is 
unfortunate. If, during IETF review, someone insists that the DTLS 
document is in fact a normative reference (which would make sense if 
that document were finished), draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles 
will be blocked from publication.

Proposal: remove any mention of draft-ietf-dprive-dnsodtls from 
draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles. When (if?) 
draft-ietf-dprive-dnsodtls goes through WG Last Call, it can have a 
paragraph that says that the RFC that 
draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles has become applies to it.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 17:05:26 +0200

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 08:18:46PM -0700,
 Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 46 lines which said:

> This document seems ready for WG Last Call.

Isn't it for the DPRIVE WG instead?

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 08:50:59 -0700

> Isn't it for the DPRIVE WG instead?

Whoops, yes, thanks. That will teach me to send mail right after a 
trans-atlantic trip.

--Paul Hoffman