Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dprive-dnsodtls-13: No Objection
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-dnsodtls/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding the shepherd write-up: There is no requirement for an implementation section. There is a recommendation to have one, to track implementations efforts during the draft's live-time, but such a section is usually removed on publication as RFC as this information easily out-dates. There is another recommendation to have a section explaining the goals and/or next steps after the end of a (successful) experiment. I personally don't think this is required here, given that I understand the experiment is to figure out if this will be adopted (given there is stable reference). One small question on the text in the draft: "For the client, state should be destroyed when disconnecting from the network (e.g., associated IP interface is brought down). " Does this mean all state including state used for session resumption? _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy