Nudge. Just wondering if anyone had read the -02 and had comments, given the large number of changes (and the proposed change to the filename).
--Paul Hoffman On Apr 1, 2021, at 10:25 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greetings again. We have produced draft-ietf-dprive-opportunistic-adotq-02 > based on extensive WG feedback before, during, and after the WG meeting. A > couple of big changes include: > > - All that fully-authenticated description we added to -01 before the WG > meeting because we didn't know that draft-rescorla-dprive-adox-latest was > coming? We removed that from our draft and point to > draft-rescorla-dprive-adox-latest instead. > > - The WG has not agreed on any reason to do authentication in opportunistic > resolver-to-authoritative DNS, so we removed any mention of it, and now just > talk about unauthenticated encryption. > > - We changed the signaling mechanism to SVCB to align with > draft-rescorla-dprive-adox-latest. > > - Even though -01 stated explicitly that the protocol was optional for all > authoritative servers, it seems that people want more. We now say more and > point to the new RootOps document. > > - Given that the WG is getting close to finishing DoQ, we put DoQ on the same > footing as DoT in the document. We added DoH because it comes for free with > using SVCB as a signal. > > Given that the document is no longer about full opportunistic encryption > (just about unauthenticated encryption), and that it not just about DoT and > DoQ, we propose that we change the file name to > draft-ietf-dprive-unauth-to-authoritative after the WG has had some time to > comment on this -02. > > --Peter and Paul > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
