Subject: [dns-privacy] Murray Kucherawy's Yes on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 00:45:36 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-12: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I suggest getting rid of use of BCP 14 entirely.  There are only two SHOULDs in
the whole thing, and I don't think you need them.

I also suggest reviewing Barry's editorial comments, because I observed the
same issues for things like "DNS-over-DTLS" and "DNS-over-TLS", for example.

---

From: Sara Dickinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 09:40:29 +0100

> On 8 Jul 2020, at 08:45, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> ———————————————————————————————————

Hi Murray, 

Thanks for the review. 

> the whole thing, and I don't think you need them.

This point has been discussed a few times - the WG considered a few alternatives and this was what eventually got consensus. We also added new text in the -12 version (suggested by Ben Kudak) at the end of section 5 to clarify the point that there are normative requirements here:  “The rest of this document does not use normative language but instead refers only to the three differing classes of action which correspond to the three named levels of compliance stated above.  However, compliance (to the indicated level) remains a normative requirement.” If you want to suggest a further update to this text, please do.

> same issues for things like "DNS-over-DTLS" and "DNS-over-TLS", for example.

Thanks - I missed a few. Should all be fixed now in -13.

Sara.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:22:03 -0700

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 1:40 AM Sara Dickinson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> This point has been discussed a few times - the WG considered a few
> alternatives and this was what eventually got consensus. We also added new
> text in the -12 version (suggested by Ben Kudak) at the end of section 5 to
> clarify the point that there are normative requirements here:  “The rest of
> this document does not use normative language but instead refers only to
> the three differing classes of action which correspond to the three named
> levels of compliance stated above.  However, compliance (to the indicated
> level) remains a normative requirement.” If you want to suggest a further
> update to this text, please do.
>

Hi Sara, thanks for your consideration.

As far as I can tell -- and I fully admit that's without the benefit of
having been part of the WG's deliberations -- the two SHOULDs ought to be
MUSTs, otherwise an operator could do neither of them and still be
compliant with the BCP because "I have my reasons".  And if you're going to
make them MUSTs, then you can just say "implements" instead of "SHOULD
implement" and "publishes" instead of "SHOULD publish", and then you don't
need BCP 14 at all.  The normative force of the BCP's text is not reduced
merely by not using BCP 14.

All that said, this is a comment to a YES ballot, so my advice is worth
what you paid for it.  :-)

-MSK