Hi,
I found two issues with draft-07. The document mentions unattributed "concerns" in a few places. That doesn't seem like helpful content, but I can't say that such "concerns" and rampant use of the passive voice are uncommon in today's IETF.
Secondly, I found the entire section "3.5.1.5.2. DoH Specific Considerations" to be objectionable, and recommend removing it. It mentions many concerns that are better covered in RFC 8484 and/or HTTP RFCs, and contrasts DoH with DoT in ways that are specious. Both TLS and HTTP allow extension fields and metadata, so there's nothing unique to DoH here (source: I've implemented DoH and ESNI clients). The entire section amounts to a description of fields that privacy conscious DoH clients /might/ send if they were poorly implemented. But it seems strange to stop there. Implementation quality ratholes can go on for a while: for example, the document doesn't mention the numerous problems with today's TLS, PKI, and BGP infrastructure that apply to both DoT and DoH.
thanks,
Rob
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 6:32 AM The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the DNS PRIVate Exchange WG (dprive) to
consider the following document: - 'Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service
Operators'
<draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-07.txt> as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2020-01-02. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This document presents operational, policy and security
considerations for DNS recursive resolver operators who choose to
offer DNS Privacy services. With these recommendations, the operator
can make deliberate decisions regarding which services to provide,
and how the decisions and alternatives impact the privacy of users.
This document also presents a framework to assist writers of a DNS
Recursive Operator Privacy Statement (analogous to DNS Security
Extensions (DNSSEC) Policies and DNSSEC Practice Statements described
in RFC6841).
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
rfc8404: Effects of Pervasive Encryption on Operators (Informational - IETF stream)
rfc8467: Padding Policies for Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0)) (Experimental - IETF stream)
rfc7828: The edns-tcp-keepalive EDNS0 Option (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
rfc8484: DNS Queries over HTTPS (DoH) (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
rfc6973: Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols (Informational - IAB stream)
rfc7766: DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
rfc6265: HTTP State Management Mechanism (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
rfc8310: Usage Profiles for DNS over TLS and DNS over DTLS (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
rfc7626: DNS Privacy Considerations (Informational - IETF stream)
rfc7830: The EDNS(0) Padding Option (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
rfc7873: Domain Name System (DNS) Cookies (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
rfc7858: Specification for DNS over Transport Layer Security (TLS) (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
rfc7871: Client Subnet in DNS Queries (Informational - IETF stream)
draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis: DNS Privacy Considerations (None - IETF stream)
rfc7816: DNS Query Name Minimisation to Improve Privacy (Experimental - IETF stream)
_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
dns-privacy@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
