On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:39:40PM -0700, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote a message of 38 lines which said:
> Title : DNS privacy considerations > Filename : draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement-06.txt This version was done to address IESG <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement/ballot/> and Gen-ART comments. The comments which were *not* addressed are mentioned here with explanations: Alissa Cooper: > You might want to include a reference to ENUM in Section 2.2. Enum is dead. Stephen Farrell > primary request: "of interest to the eavesdropper" isn't quite right > - the eavesdropper is probably more interested in the URL and not > just the DNS name from the URL. Depends. Anyway, "of interest" was relative to the secondary and tertiary requests not to other sources of information. > "glue records" - you didn't say what those are [I-D.ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology] seems sufficient > the [denis-edns-client-subnet] reference doesn't point at a great > URL for an RFC, be great if there were a better reference. It's a good text, well written, and right to the point. I have no better reference. > The same issue may come up wrt some of the other references. See issue #7 <https://github.com/bortzmeyer/my-IETF-work/issues/7> I was not able to find better references. (Personal rant: I prefer URLs of personal Web pages, that I can find and read immediately, rather than reference to a scientific symposium hold ten years ago and whose speeches are not available publically.) Joel Jaeggli > I would probably consign the actual > description of the dns protocol in the introduction ( paragraph 3/4) to a > subsection The vast majority of the introduction is about the DNS protocol so I believe that the rest of the section would be very small. Suresh Krishnan (Gen-ART) > Not really sure if it belongs in this document, but I personally think > that DNScrypt is probably worth at least a passing mention We give the priority to drafts adopted by working groups, which is the case for the two mentioned in the Security Considerations as possible solutions. > Why is there a separate class of references for URI? Shouldn't this be > folded into either Normative or Informative? This is the default behaviour of xml2rfc. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
