------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Martine Sophie Lenders
*Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2026 9:55 PM
*To:* Mike Bishop
*Cc:* Karen Moore; [email protected]; Matthias Waehlisch;
[email protected]; [email protected]; rfc-editor@rfc-
editor.org; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9953 <draft-ietf-core-dns-
over-coap-20> for your review
Hi Mike,
On 3/18/26 19:00, Karen Moore wrote:
Hi Martine, Thomas, Matthias, Christian, Cenk, and *Mike (AD),
Thank you for your replies. We have noted all of your approvals for
the content of this document on the AUTH48 status page (https://www.rfc-
editor.org/auth48/rfc9953 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9953>).
Note that we will remove any hidden comments prior to publication. Once
Mike approves the beyond editorial changes made, we will contact you
regarding approving the format of the document.
*Mike, as AD, please review the updates to the following sections and
let us know if you approve. The changes can be viewed here: <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-auth48diff.html <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9953-auth48diff.html>>.
Section 3.2 (review "has a length between 0 and 23 octets, inclusive”)
Section 3.2.1 (updates to the figures)
[Note from Martine]:
a) The hexadecimal TTL `00 00 06 6b` in the third example parses
to 1643, not 643.
b) The RDATA in the last example contains 44 bytes (00 2c), not
43 bytes (00 2b)
These changes to the examples should be confirmable with any DNS parser
as the actual SVCB record data is not touched. However, there is also an
update in the current main branch of the Python-based DNS toolkit
`dnspython` [1] which specifically allows for parsing the docpath
SvcParam, in case you need output similar to the "human-readable" one.
Hope that can help you with your review.
Martine
[1]
https://github.com/rthalley/dnspython/
commit/08c5a9e6914b63eafb3a8b959c463a9213714ca3 <https://github.com/
rthalley/dnspython/commit/08c5a9e6914b63eafb3a8b959c463a9213714ca3>
Section 4.3 (added “OPTIONAL”)
Section 5.1 (updated "do so” to "unsubscribe or close the session”)
Acknowledgements (new text added)
—Files (please refresh)—
Updated MD file:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953.md <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9953.md>
Updated output files:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953.html <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9953.html>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953.pdf <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9953.pdf>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953.txt <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9953.txt>
Diff files of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-diff.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-diff.html> (all changes)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953rfcdiff.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953rfcdiff.html> (all changes side by side)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-auth48diff.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-auth48diff.html> (AUTH48 changes)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-auth48rfcdiff.html
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-auth48rfcdiff.html> (AUTH48
changes side by side)
Diff files of the kramdown:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-diff.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-diff.html> (all changes)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-rfcdiff.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-rfcdiff.html> (all changes side by
side)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-auth48diff.html
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-auth48diff.html> (AUTH48
changes)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-auth48rfcdiff.html
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-
auth48rfcdiff.html> (AUTH48 changes side by side)
For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9953 <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/auth48/rfc9953>
Best regards,
Karen Moore
RFC Production Center
On Mar 17, 2026, at 11:02 PM, Martine Sophie Lenders
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Karen and team,
thanks for processing this.
One minor thing I noticed is, that there is still a list of
references no longer used (from the deleted appendices and
implementation status sections) at the very bottom of the markdown
version from line 809. Also there is still the comment on the too long
TXT output. From what I can see this resolved.
But neither those references nor the comment references show up in
the final HTML or TXT, so I count them as formatting updates and approve
the publication of the current version.
Best
Martine
On 3/18/26 00:58, Karen Moore wrote:
Hello Martine,
Thank you for your reply. We have updated our files accordingly.
Please note that we updated one instance of “Lenders, M.” To “Lenders,
M. S.” per your request. Please review and let us know if any further
changes are needed or if you approve the document in its current form.
Note that we will await approvals from each author prior to moving
forward with formatting updates.
—Files—
Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to
view the most recent version. Please review the contents of the document
carefully as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC.
For details of the AUTH48 process in kramdown-rfc (including the
two-part approval process), see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/
doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/
wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc>.
Updated MD file:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953.md <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9953.md>
Updated output files:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953.html <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9953.html>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953.pdf <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9953.pdf>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953.txt <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9953.txt>
Diff files of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-diff.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-diff.html> (all changes)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953rfcdiff.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953rfcdiff.html> (all changes side by side)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-auth48diff.html
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-auth48diff.html> (AUTH48
changes)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-auth48rfcdiff.html
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-auth48rfcdiff.html> (AUTH48
changes side by side)
Diff files of the kramdown:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-diff.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-diff.html> (all changes)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-rfcdiff.html
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-rfcdiff.html> (all
changes side by side)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-auth48diff.html
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-auth48diff.html> (AUTH48
changes)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-auth48rfcdiff.html
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-
auth48rfcdiff.html> (AUTH48 changes side by side)
For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9953 <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/auth48/rfc9953>
Best regards,
Karen Moore
RFC Production Center
On Mar 16, 2026, at 4:54 PM, Martine Sophie Lenders
<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear RFC editor team,
here too, sorry for the late reply. Find our answers, additional
nits and errors found, and additional requests inline.
On 3/6/26 04:15, [email protected] wrote:
Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!--[rfced] FYI: We updated [I-D.ietf-core-coap-dtls-alpn] to
[PRE-RFC9952]
for now. We will make the final updates in RFCXML (i.e., remove
"PRE-").
-->
ACK.
2) <!--[rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been
updated as follows. The abbreviation has been expanded per
Section 3.6
of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). We also added "the". Please review.
Original:
DNS over CoAP (DoC)
Current:
DNS over the Constrained Application Protocol (DoC)
-->
See remarks in the reply on RFC-to-be-9952 with regards to "CoAP"
in the title. Our preferred title would be
DNS over CoAP (DoC)
If adding CoAP to the well-known abbreviation list is not
possible, your proposal is fine.
3) <!--[rfced] May we remove "(CoAPS)" in the Abstract as this
term/abbreviation is not used elsewhere in the document? Please
review.
Original:
These CoAP messages can be protected by (D)TLS-Secured CoAP
(CoAPS)
or Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
(OSCORE) to
provide encrypted DNS message exchange for constrained devices in
the Internet of Things (IoT).
Perhaps:
These CoAP messages can be protected by (D)TLS-Secured CoAP or
Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE) to
provide encrypted DNS message exchange for constrained devices in
the Internet of Things (IoT).
-->
ACK.
4) <!--[rfced] FYI: draft-ietf-iotops-7228bis has not been
published yet
(currently, its IESG state is "I-D Exists"). Thus, we have left
references to RFC 7228 and draft-ietf-iotops-7228bis as is.
Author note:
Please remove the {{-constr-nodes}} reference and replace
it with {{I-D.ietf-iotops-7228bis}} throughout the document
in case
{{I-D.ietf-iotops-7228bis}} becomes an RFC before publication.
-->
Yes, sadly draft-ietf-iotops-7228bis will take a little longer
until publication.
5) <!--[rfced] FYI - We updated "authoritive name server" to
"authoritative name
server" to match other usage in this document and in other RFCs.
Original:
That DoC server can be the authoritive name server for the
queried
record or a DNS client (i.e., a stub or recursive resolver) that
resolves DNS information by using other DNS transports such
as DNS
over UDP [STD13], DNS over HTTPS [RFC8484], or DNS over QUIC
[RFC9250] when communicating with the upstream DNS
infrastructure.
Updated:
That DoC server can be the authoritative name server for the
queried
record or a DNS client (i.e., a stub or recursive resolver) that
resolves DNS information by using other DNS transports such
as DNS
over UDP [STD13], DNS over HTTPS [RFC8484], or DNS over QUIC
[RFC9250] when communicating with the upstream DNS
infrastructure.
-->
ACK.
6) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "is of length 0 and 24 octets" in
this sentence.
Original:
As long as each docpath-
segment is of length 0 and 24 octets, it is easily
transferred into
the path representation in CRIs [I-D.ietf-core-href] by
masking each
length octet with the CBOR text string major type 3 (0x60 as an
octet, see [RFC8949]).
Perhaps:
As long as each docpath-
segment has a length between 0 and 24 octets, it is easily
transferred into
the path representation in CRIs [CRI] by masking each length
octet
with the CBOR text string major type 3 (0x60 as an octet; see
[RFC8949]).
-->
Yes, it must be "between 0 and ...", however there is also a
technical error in that sentence (thanks Marco, for noticing last
minute!). To avoid ambiguity it is probably also best, to spefify that
the range is inclusive. It must read
As long as each docpath-
segment has a length between 0 and 23 octets, inclusive, it is
easily transferred into
the path representation in CRIs [CRI] by masking each length octet
with the CBOR text string major type 3 (0x60 as an octet; see
[RFC8949]).
24 is already the marker for that the value of the argument is
held in the following 1 byte (see [RFC8949, section 3]) and would thus
not be as easily transferable as stated.
7) <!--[rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence.
Please let us
know if it can be revised as shown below for clarity.
Original:
Likewise, it can be transferred into a URI path-abempty form by
replacing each length octet with the "/" character None of the
abovementioned prevent longer docpath-segments than the
considered,
they just make the translation harder, as they require to
make space
for the longer delimiters, in turn requiring to move octets.
Perhaps:
Likewise, it can be transferred into a URI path-abempty form by
replacing each length octet with the "/" character. None of the
abovementioned prevent longer docpath-segments than the
considered
ones; they just make the translation harder as space is required
for the longer delimiters, which in turn require octets to be
moved.
-->
Due to the line ending in the Markdown file we failed to spot the
missing period between "character" and "None". Yes, please go ahead with
the proposed version.
8) <!-- [rfced] May we update "going through" to "with" here to
improve clarity?
Original:
The construction algorithm for DoC
requests is as follows, going through the provided records in
order
of their priority.
Perhaps:
The construction algorithm for DoC
requests is as follows, with the provided records in order
of their priority.
-->
ACK.
9) <!-- [rfced] How may we update the third item in the series
for parallel
structure? Would either removing "from" or adding "information"
be correct?
Original:
This may include (1) A
or AAAA RRs associated with the target name and delivered
with the
SVCB RR (see [RFC9462]), (2) "ipv4hint" or "ipv6hint" SvcParams
from the SVCB RR (see [RFC9461]), or (3) from IPv4 or IPv6
addresses provided if DNR [RFC9463] is used.
Perhaps A (cut "from"):
This may include (1) A
or AAAA RRs associated with the target name and delivered
with the
SVCB RR (see [RFC9462]), (2) "ipv4hint" or "ipv6hint" SvcParams
from the SVCB RR (see [RFC9461]), or (3) IPv4 or IPv6
addresses provided if DNR [RFC9463] is used.
or
Perhaps B (add "information"):
This may include (1) A
or AAAA RRs associated with the target name and delivered
with the
SVCB RR (see [RFC9462]), (2) "ipv4hint" or "ipv6hint" SvcParams
from the SVCB RR (see [RFC9461]), or (3) information from
IPv4 or IPv6
addresses provided if DNR [RFC9463] is used.
-->
Proposal A is the more accurate one, so please use that one.
10) <!--[rfced] Per the following note, we have replaced "ff 0a"
with "00 0a" in
the examples in Section 3.2.1 (per IANA's assignment of "10" for
"docpath"). Please confirm that this is correct and let us know
if any further
updates are needed.
Author note:
Since the number for "docpath" was not assigned at the time of
writing, we used the hex `ff 0a` (in decimal 65290; from the
private use range of SvcParamKeys) throughout this section.
Before
publication, please replace `ff 0a` with the hexadecimal
representation of the final value assigned by IANA in this
section. Please remove this paragraph after that.
-->
Your replacements here are correct. However, while checking the
parsibility of the hexadecimal examples, we noticed several errors we
introduced:
a) The hexadecimal TTL `00 00 06 6b` in the third example parses to
1643, not 643.
Original:
_dns.example.org. 643 IN SVCB 1 dns.example.org (
Corrected:
_dns.example.org. 1643 IN SVCB 1 dns.example.org (
b) The RDATA in the last example contains 44 bytes (00 2c),
not 43 bytes (00 2b)
Original:
Resource record (binary):
04 5f 64 6e 73 07 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65 03 6f 72
67 00 00 40 00 01 00 00 01 ad 00 2b 00 01 03 64
Corrected:
Resource record (binary):
04 5f 64 6e 73 07 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65 03 6f 72
67 00 00 40 00 01 00 00 01 ad 00 2c 00 01 03 64
11) <!--[rfced] We note that "Cache-Key" appears as "cache key"
in RFC
8132. Would you like to match use in RFC 8132?
Original:
This ensures that the CoAP Cache-Key (see [RFC8132], Section 2)
does not change when multiple DNS queries for the same DNS data,
carried in CoAP requests, are issued.
Perhaps:
This ensures that the CoAP cache key (see [RFC8132], Section 2)
does not change when multiple DNS queries for the same DNS data,
carried in CoAP requests, are issued.
-->
We used the spelling from [RFC7252] here. As this is also used in
many other documents except [RFC8132] (e.g., RFC 9668, draft-ietf-core-
groupcomm-bis, or draft-ietf-core-cacheable-oscore), we would prefer the
original spelling "Cache-Key".
12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the text starting with "OPCODE—a DNS
Update ...". Should this be updated as follows or in some other way?
Original:
As described in Section 4.1, a DoC server uses NotImp (RCODE
= 4) if
it does not support an OPCODE—a DNS Update (OPCODE = 5) for
"example.org" in this case.
Perhaps:
As described in Section 4.1, a DoC server uses NotImp (RCODE
= 4) if
it does not support an OPCODE - in this case, a DNS Update
(OPCODE = 5) for
"example.org" is used.
-->
It is not used, but the NotImp (RCODE = 4) rejects the DNS Update
(OPCODE = 5). As we are not sure, if "reject" is the correct DNS
terminology, how about the following.
Proposal:
As described in Section 4.1, a DoC server uses NotImp (RCODE =
4) if
it does not support an OPCODE - in this case it errors on a DNS
Update (OPCODE = 5) for "example.org".
13) <!--[rfced] Please clarify what "a failure to do so" refers
to in the
following sentence.
Original:
As there is no CoAP observer anymore from the perspective of the
DoC server, a failure to do so cannot be communicated back to any
DoC observer.
-->
A failure to unsubscribe or close the session.
Proposal:
As there is no CoAP observer anymore from the perspective of the
DoC server, a failure to unsubscribe or close the session
cannot be
communicated back to any DoC observer.
14) <!--[rfced] FYI: We added "to protect" to this sentence for
clarity. Please let us know if it changes the intended meaning.
Original:
For secure communication via (D)TLS or OSCORE, an
unpredictable ID
against spoofing is not necessary.
Updated:
For secure communication via (D)TLS or OSCORE, an
unpredictable ID
to protect against spoofing is not necessary.
-->
ACK.
15) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We removed the change log, which included a
reference to RFC 2136. If RFC 2136 should be mentioned elsewhere in
the running text, please let us know.
-->
Section 4.1 clarifies that OPCODEs other than 0 are not supported,
as such (and as pointed out in the change log entry for `-10`), the
reference to single out DNS Update (OPCODE = 5, RFC 2136) is not
necessary. DNS Update is only mentioned as an example for the NotImp
RCODE now. We do not think that justifies the reference either. If you
think otherwise, please add an informational reference there, e.g.,
adapting our proposal from 12):
As described in Section 4.1, a DoC server uses NotImp (RCODE =
4) if
it does not support an OPCODE - in this case it errors on a DNS
Update (OPCODE = 5, see [RFC2138]) for "example.org".
16) <!--[rfced] We note that "draft-amsuess-core-cachable-oscore" is
expired and has been replaced by "draft-ietf-core-cacheable-oscore".
May we replace the current entry below with the entry for
"draft-ietf-core-cacheable-oscore"?
Current:
[I-D.amsuess-core-cachable-oscore]
Amsüss, C. and M. Tiloca, "Cacheable OSCORE", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-amsuess-core-cachable-oscore-11, 6 July
2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-amsuess-core-
cachable-
oscore-11>.
Perhaps:
[CACHABLE-OSCORE]
Amsüss, C. and M. Tiloca, "Cacheable OSCORE", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-cacheable-
oscore-00, 22 September 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
cacheable-oscore-00>.
-->
Yes, but the title changed as well in the most current version of
that draft.
Perhaps (also note the extra “E” in the reference):
[CACHEABLE-OSCORE]
Amsüss, C. and M. Tiloca, "End-to-End Protected and Cacheable
Responses for the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) using
Group Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (Group
OSCORE)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-
cacheable-oscore-01, 2 March 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
cacheable-oscore-01>.
17) <!--[rfced] Sourcecode and artwork
a) Some lines in Figure 1 are too long for the TXT output. This
figure is
marked as artwork, so it needs to have a width of 72 characters
or less. How
may we revise this figure to fit these parameters? We tested
removing some
space in the figure; please check out the following test files
and let us know
if this would work (see TXT file for ascii art and HTML for SVG).
If not, please
provide an updated figure.
Test files:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953test.md <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953test.md>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953test.txt <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953test.txt>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953test.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953test.html>
Your proposal is still recognizable as the original when parsed to
SVG and readable when shown in TXT, so ACK for taking the proposal in
rfc9953test.md.
b) We have updated the blocks in Sections 3.2, 3.2.1, 4.2.3, and
4.3.3 to be
marked as sourcecode. We set the type for the block in Section
3.2 as "abnf"
(i.e., "~~~ abnf"). Please let us know if the type should be set
for the other
sourcecode blocks. For example, should the ones in Section 3.2.1
be marked as
type "dns-rr"? If the current list of preferred values (see link
below) does
not contain an applicable type, feel free to let us know. Also, it is
acceptable to leave the type not set.
List of sourcecode types:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>
As far as we can tell, marking them as “sourcecode” in Markdown,
makes these blocks rendered into a <sourcecode> XML element, rather than
an <artwork> element. That is definitely more correct.
All of them are merely textual representations of DNS messages or
resource records, so we would not assign any type to them (except maybe
"txt", but that does not seem to exist and we see it as equivalent to
having no type).
Looking at other RFCs, "dns-rr" only is used for zone-file-like
DNS resource records (which we also use after `Resource record (human-
readable):`). However, our examples include a hexadecimal part (as well
as the labels for each). We fear that this might confuse parsers more
than it is helpful, so these examples should stay pure text blocks as well.
c) The blocks in Section 4.3.3 are too long for the TXT output.
We marked
these as sourcecode, so they should have a width of 69 characters
or less. The
long lines are currently 70 characters. Would moving all the
lines with
semicolons over to the left one space (in just this section or in
all the
sourcecode in the document) be a good solution? We tried this in
the test
files listed above so you can see what the output will look like.
Feel free to
offer other suggestions as well.
-->
Yes that is acceptable. However, for reasons of consistency it
should also be applied to _all_ examples in Sections 3.2.1, 4.2.3, and
4.3.3, including the indent under `Resource record (binary):`, `Resource
record (human-readable):` and `Payload (binary):`, e.g., in Section 3.2.1
~~~
Resource record (binary):
04 5f 64 6e 73 07 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65 03 6f 72
67 00 00 40 00 01 00 00 06 28 00 1e 00 01 03 64
6e 73 07 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65 03 6f 72 67 00 00
01 00 03 02 63 6f 00 0a 00 00
Resource record (human-readable):
_dns.example.org. 1576 IN SVCB 1 dns.example.org (
alpn=co docpath )
~~~
{: gi="sourcecode"}
or in Section 4.2.3
~~~
FETCH coaps://[2001:db8::1]/
Content-Format: 553 (application/dns-message)
Accept: 553 (application/dns-message)
Payload (binary):
00 00 01 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 07 65 78 61
6d 70 6c 65 03 6f 72 67 00 00 1c 00 01
Payload (human-readable):
;; ->>Header<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 0
;; flags: rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;example.org. IN AAAA
~~~
{: gi="sourcecode"}
18) <!--[rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of
the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/
#inclusive_language <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/
#inclusive_language>>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this
nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but
this should
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->
Thanks! To the best of our abilities, we did not find any
potentially remaining non-inclusive wordings in the document.
--------------------------------------
# Additional Nits and Errors Found
The current version of RFC-to-be 9953 effectively replaced an "or"
with an "and". Furthermore, that the more related DTLS and TLS separated
by OSCORE read a little bit weird on final read-through.
Original:
Each CoAP message can be secured by DTLS 1.2 or newer [RFC6347]
[RFC9147] as well as Object Security for Constrained RESTful
Environments (OSCORE) [RFC8613] but also TLS 1.3 or newer [RFC8323]
[RFC8446] to ensure message integrity and confidentiality.
Current:
Each CoAP message can be secured by DTLS 1.2 or newer [RFC6347]
[RFC9147] as well as Object Security for Constrained RESTful
Environments (OSCORE) [RFC8613] and TLS 1.3 or newer [RFC8323]
[RFC8446] to ensure message integrity and confidentiality.
Since the "or" is meant to be inclusive (nothing speaks against,
e.g., combining DTLS and OSCORE), we would prefer the following:
Proposal:
Each CoAP message can be secured by any combination of DTLS 1.2 or
newer [RFC6347] [RFC9147], TLS 1.3 or newer [RFC8323] [RFC8446], or
Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE)
[RFC8613] to ensure message integrity and confidentiality.
---------------------------------------
In paragraph 7 of Section 3.2 of -20 (see https://www.ietf.org/
archive/id/draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-20.html#section-3.2-7)
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-dns-over-
coap-20.html#section-3.2-7)> it states in HTML and TXT form:
The same considerations for the "," and "" characters in
docpath-segments [...]
There is a render error here due to the original Markdown having
only one `\` inserted between the quotation-mark pair `""` which results
in an interpretation as an escaped `"`. The Markdown must be corrected
as follows.
Original:
The same considerations for the "," and "\" characters in
docpath-segments [...]
Proposal:
The same considerations for the "," and "\\" characters in
docpath-segments [...]
(Thanks Marco for spotting this)
---------------------------------------
The "optional" with regards to the Accept option in Section 4.3
should be normative
Original:
The use of the Accept option in the request is optional.
Proposed change:
The use of the Accept option in the request is OPTIONAL.
---------------------------------------
The two ndashes in Section 4.3.3 should actually be "–" (–
as XML character entity reference) not two minuses (--)
Original:
When a DNS error -- NxDomain (RCODE = 3) for "does.not.exist" in
this case -- is noted in the DNS response, the CoAP response still
indicates success.
Proposed change:
When a DNS error – NxDomain (RCODE = 3) for "does.not.exist" in
this case – is noted in the DNS response, the CoAP response still
indicates success.
---------------------------------------
In Section 5.1 the capitalization of "DNS push [notification(s)]"
is mixed. E.g.,
DNS Push Notifications [RFC8765] provide the capability to
asynchronously notify clients about resource record changes.
vs.
The DoC server MAY subscribe to DNS push notifications for that
record.
Since [RFC8765] capitalizes "DNS Push Notification(s)"
consistently, we prefer the consistent spelling of "DNS Push", "DNS Push
Notifications", etc. in RFC-to-be 9953 as well. "Notification" on its
own (as well as its plural) or in conjunction with CoAP Observe should
remain uncapitalized, as per Section 2.
----------------------------------------
In Section 7, RFC-to-be 9953 refers to considerations on the
maintenance of long-lived security contexts. In the cited version
(`-03`) of [CoAP-CORR-CLAR], these considerations moved to Section 2.7.
Original:
Additionally, DoC uses request patterns that require
the maintenance of long-lived security contexts. Section 2.6 of
[CoAP-CORR-CLAR] provides insights on what can be done when
those are
resumed from a new endpoint.
Proposed change:
Additionally, DoC uses request patterns that require
the maintenance of long-lived security contexts. Section 2.7 of
[CoAP-CORR-CLAR] provides insights on what can be done when
those are
resumed from a new endpoint.
----------------------------------------
# Additional Requests
Please append the following sentence to the acknowledgements:
This work was supported in parts by the German Federal Ministry of
Research, Technology and Space (BMFTR) under the grant numbers
16KIS1386K (TU Dresden) and 16KIS1387 (HAW Hamburg) within the
research project PIVOT and under the grant numbers 16KIS1694K (TU
Dresden) and 16KIS1695 (HAW Hamburg) within the research project
C-ray4edge.
Thank you.
Thank you!
Martine
Karen Moore and Rebecca VanRheenen
RFC Production Center
On Mar 5, 2026, at 7:10 PM, [email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2026/03/05
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Your document has now entered AUTH48.
The document was edited in kramdown-rfc as part of the RPC pilot
test (see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?
id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc) <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/
doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc)>.
Please review the procedures for AUTH48 using kramdown-rfc:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?
id=pilot_test_instructions_completing_auth48_using_kramdown <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?
id=pilot_test_instructions_completing_auth48_using_kramdown>
Once your document has completed AUTH48, it will be published as
an RFC.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953.md <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9953.md>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953.html <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9953.html>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953.pdf <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9953.pdf>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953.txt <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9953.txt>
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-diff.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-diff.html>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-rfcdiff.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-rfcdiff.html> (side by side)
Diff of the kramdown:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-diff.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-diff.html>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-rfcdiff.html
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-md-rfcdiff.html> (side by side)
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9953 <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/auth48/rfc9953>
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9953 (draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-20)
Title : DNS over CoAP (DoC)
Author(s) : M. S. Lenders, C. Amsüss, C. Gündoğan, T. C.
Schmidt, M. Wählisch
WG Chair(s) : Jaime Jimenez, Marco Tiloca
Area Director(s) : Gorry Fairhurst, Mike Bishop
