Subject: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement-06.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:39:40 -0700

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

        Title           : DNS privacy considerations
        Author          : Stephane Bortzmeyer
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement-06.txt
	Pages           : 17
	Date            : 2015-06-15

Abstract:
   This document describes the privacy issues associated with the use of
   the DNS by Internet users.  It is intended to be an analysis of the
   present situation and does not prescribe solutions.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement-06

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement-06

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: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 22:50:09 +0200

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:39:40PM -0700,
 [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote 

> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement-06.txt

This version was done to address IESG
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement/ballot/>
and Gen-ART comments. The comments which were *not* addressed are
mentioned here with explanations:

Alissa Cooper:
> You might want to include a reference to ENUM in Section 2.2.

Enum is dead.

Stephen Farrell
> primary request: "of interest to the eavesdropper" isn't quite right
> - the eavesdropper is probably more interested in the URL and not
> just the DNS name from the URL.

Depends. Anyway, "of interest" was relative to the secondary and
tertiary requests not to other sources of information.

> "glue records" - you didn't say what those are

[I-D.ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology] seems sufficient

> the [denis-edns-client-subnet] reference doesn't point at a great
> URL for an RFC, be great if there were a better reference.

It's a good text, well written, and right to the point. I have no
better reference.

> The same issue may come up wrt some of the other references.

See issue #7 <https://github.com/bortzmeyer/my-IETF-work/issues/7> I
was not able to find better references. (Personal rant: I prefer URLs
of personal Web pages, that I can find and read immediately, rather
than reference to a scientific symposium hold ten years ago and whose
speeches are not available publically.)

Joel Jaeggli
> I would probably consign the actual
> description of the dns protocol in the introduction ( paragraph 3/4) to a
> subsection 

The vast majority of the introduction is about the DNS protocol so I
believe that the rest of the section would be very small.

Suresh Krishnan (Gen-ART)
> Not really sure if it belongs in this document, but I personally think
> that DNScrypt is probably worth at least a passing mention

We give the priority to drafts adopted by working groups, which is the
case for the two mentioned in the Security Considerations as possible
solutions.

> Why is there a separate class of references for URI? Shouldn't this be
> folded into either Normative or Informative? 

This is the default behaviour of xml2rfc.