Subject: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-13.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 01:38:12 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the DNS PRIVate Exchange WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service Operators
        Authors         : Sara Dickinson
                          Benno J. Overeinder
                          Roland M. van Rijswijk-Deij
                          Allison Mankin
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-13.txt
	Pages           : 44
	Date            : 2020-07-10

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 non-normative framework to assist
   writers of a Recursive operator Privacy statement (analogous to DNS
   Security Extensions (DNSSEC) Policies and DNSSEC Practice Statements
   described in RFC6841).

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-13
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-13

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-13

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Sara Dickinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 09:41:07 +0100

Hi, 

This version should address the final comments from the IESG review.

Sara. 

> On 10 Jul 2020, at 09:38, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dns-privacy mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

---

From: Bob Harold <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 10:26:24 -0400

> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-13

When I try to view the diff, I get the error:

"Couldn't retrieve file 2 (
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-13.txt) - got a
redirect to '
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-12.txt'.."

-- 
Bob Harold

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:19:39 +0000

Bob,

It looks like there is a bug in the datatracker

Please use https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-13.txt

-éric

From: Bob Harold <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, 10 July 2020 at 16:26
To: Sara Dickinson <[email-masked]>
Cc: DNS Privacy Working Group <[email-masked]>, Eric Vyncke <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-13.txt

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 4:41 AM Sara Dickinson <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Hi,

Sara.

> On 10 Jul 2020, at 09:38, [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>

"Couldn't retrieve file 2 (https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-13.txt) - got a redirect to 'https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-12.txt'.."

--
Bob Harold

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 09:47:41 +0200

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 09:41:07AM +0100,
 Sara Dickinson <[email-masked]> wrote 

> This version should address the final comments from the IESG review.

Some very small editorial details:

Abstract "to assist writers of a Recursive operator Privacy statement"
Capital S, for the acronym.

Section 1 "These open resolvers have tended" Rather "public resolvers"
to be consistent with the rest of the paragraph and with RFC 8499.

Section 5.3.1 "Run a copy of the root zone on loopback [RFC7706]"
should now be written "Run a local copy of the root zone [RFC8806]".

Appendix D.2 "Both POST and GET are supported" Can probably be deleted
since RFC 8484 says "DoH servers MUST implement both the POST and GET
methods."

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 06:34:13 +0000

Stéphane,

This is a little late in the process as the BCP has been approved last Thursday after IESG review ;-)

OTOH, this is editorial changes and do not change the core of the document.

So, I suggest to upload quickly a new revision before it goes in the RFC Editor queue (where those changes could still happen in AUTH48 state). You, Sara, and I are in European time zone, so, let's act quickly this Monday morning

-éric

---

From: Sara Dickinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:54:55 +0100

> On 13 Jul 2020, at 07:34, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Stéphane,
> 

Done.

Sara.