Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dprive-dns-over-tls-07: 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-dns-over-tls/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I am a definite Yes on this work, but just have a couple of comments... * Section 3.1 says "By mutual agreement with its server, the client MAY, instead, use a port other than port 853 for DNS-over-TLS. Such an other port MUST NOT be port 53..." It would be useful to *briefly* explain the MUST NOT. If it is by mutual agreement, what's the harm? * Section 3.2 uses the SPKI acronym before it is expanded in section 4.2. * I do not understand the last sentence of section 3.2, especially the "SHOULD". _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
