Re: [dns-privacy] WGLC : draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing

2023-03-22 Thread Brian Haberman
Just a reminder for WG participants to comment on the draft. The last call ends in 4 days. Thanks to Scott for chiming in with his perspective. Regards, Brian On 3/12/23 11:43 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: All, This starts a 2-week WGLC for draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-05. This call

Re: [dns-privacy] WGLC : draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing

2023-03-22 Thread Wessels, Duane
> On Mar 12, 2023, at 8:43 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: > > All, > This starts a 2-week WGLC for draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-05. > This call is to determine if the document is sufficiently complete to > facilitate implementations and interoperability testing. Once that > determina

Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-05.txt

2023-03-22 Thread libor.peltan
Hi, I generally like the idea of this draft and unilateral probing strategy. I just have a (possibly dumb) question. ``` An authoritative server SHOULD implement and deploy DNS-over-TLS (DoT) on TCP port 853. An authoritative server SHOULD implement and deploy DNS-over-QUIC (DoQ) on UDP port

Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WGLC : draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing

2023-03-22 Thread Paul Hoffman
On Mar 12, 2023, at 8:43 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: > > All, > This starts a 2-week WGLC for draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-05. > This call is to determine if the document is sufficiently complete to > facilitate implementations and interoperability testing. Once that > determination

Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WGLC : draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing

2023-03-22 Thread Paul Hoffman
On Mar 22, 2023, at 12:39 PM, Wessels, Duane wrote: > My primary concern with this draft is that, as written, it could > be interpreted as a requirement for DNS providers that operate > under contracts that use language such as "shall comply with relevant > existing RFCs". There are plenty of