On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 02:25:27PM -0700, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote a message of 39 lines which said:
> Title : Padding Policy for EDNS(0) > Filename : draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-01.txt I've read it. Summary: 1) This is very useful and important. Padding is not so easy as it may seems and, without specific guidance, developers may do strange things. 2) The document is OK and should be moved forward. Most TODO in the text can be dropped, as well as the question mark at the end :-) 3) It is important for reviewers to note that it is based on actual measurements (dkg at NDSS 17 <https://www.internetsociety.org/events/ndss-symposium/ndss-symposium-2017/dns-privacy-workshop-2017-programme>), not just a theoretical analysis. Editorial: * section 3: ENDS should be EDNS * section 4.2: "Therefore, this policy is equally useless "No Padding" option described above" should be "Therefore, this policy is equally useless AS THE "No Padding" option described above", no? (disclaimer: I don't speak english) _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
