Subject: [dns-privacy] DPRIVE is officially a WG.

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:26:47 -0700

... now get back to work.

More seriously - we can now adopt documents, etc.
We will be meeting in Hawaii, and so far it looks like we will have a
useful and interesting agenda - hope to see you all there.

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: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:30:25 -0400

Is [draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy adopted by charter inclusion? 
if not I want it adopted. 

	Olafur

On Oct 17, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> dns-privacy mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:34:32 -0700

> Is [draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy adopted by charter inclusion?

I don't think it is...

> if not I want it adopted.

[no hat]
As do I.
[/not hat]

I did not want the first official post to be "... and with no
consultation with the WG, we are adopting this".

So, thanks for asking, I'll start an official CfA...

W

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 14:59:01 -0400

Won't we need to move to the [email-masked] list to start the WG discussion?

I would prefer this just be a simple name change or whatever but I
know that the usual thing is to resubscribe.

Also anticipate that new folk who aren't interested in charter
discussions joining and needing to come up to speed.

Reading the draft is a good way to do that. I would like to suggest we
add some stuff though:

1) Constraints.

Point out that the legacy DNS operates under a baroque set of
constraints that are not necessarily documented in section 2.1. In
particular the 500 byte limit and various DNS hijacking approaches.

2) Volume constraints

Any privacy solution has to be compatible with existing measures that
enable server scaling. It has to be possible to operate a resolver or
authoritative as a stateless service.

3) Public nature of DNS data.

I think this needs elaborating more. There have always been people who
assert that the cost of putting my hosts onto the Internet has to be
revealing their internal network names. It has never been so and the
idea has always been silly but it is frequently asserted even so.

A better statement is that the DNS space is logically consistent. That
is applications are entitled to expect that if they attempt to resolve
the name www.example.com and they get an answer then the answer will
be 'logically the same' regardless of their starting point. But even
that isn't necessarily the whole story.

If we are doing geolocation type tricks then I really don't want to
disclose the IP addresses of my hosts to everyone. I might have a
system where customers of ISPs that do a decent job of shutting down
DoS attacks go to one server and those that don't go elsewhere. I
don't want the IP addresses of the Dos proof site to leak.

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:10:58 -0700

> Won't we need to move to the [email-masked] list to start the WG discussion?

No, the announcement of the WG being formed said that this list is the WG's list.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 08:58:41 -0700

> No, the announcement of the WG being formed said that this list is the WG's list.

Yup, as does the datatracker / charter page.

However, many people automatically assume that the list for a wg is
[email-masked]. I don't really want to do this, but Phillip does
make a good point... What would y'all like to do?

A: keep the list name as dns-privacy@
B: request that the list be migrated / renamed / whatever to dprive@

I was hoping that we could charter, figure out what we are doing,
document that and shut down fast enough that it wouldn't matter,
but...

W

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 09:17:20 -0700

On Oct 18, 2014, at 8:58 AM, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:

> [email-masked].

And, when they are wrong, their mail bounces in an obvious fashion.

> I don't really want to do this, but Phillip does
> make a good point...

No, he doesn't. Ten years ago, that was common; today, a large percentage of WGs that started as BoFs have the mailing list name different from the WG name.  

> What would y'all like to do?
> 

Please do A. B makes things harder for everyone, particularly those who want to see the discussion to date. Other WGs in the same situation as us have done *just fine*, and this seems like senseless process that will hinder our work.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Ilari Liusvaara <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 19:59:50 +0300

> useful and interesting agenda - hope to see you all there.
 
The Jabber room doesn't appear to be created yet.

Might want to fix that before IETF91 (so not to repeat TCPINC@IETF90[1])

[1] Noticed at start of WG meeting.

-Ilari

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:30:09 -0400

I didn't even know that it was optional. Certainly namedroppers wasn't
allowed to keep its name despite a twenty odd year history.

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:00:25 +0100

> A: keep the list name as dns-privacy@

+1