HI All, I also support this draft moving forwards.
A minor suggestion is to update the following sentence in the Security Considerations section so it doesn’t inadvertently sound like advice to only ever implement a single policy: CURRENT: “Therefore, any implementor of EDNS(0) Padding must carefully consider the chosen policy and its parameters.” PROPOSED: “Therefore, any implementor of EDNS(0) Padding must carefully consider which policies to implement, the default policy chosen, which parameters to make configurable, and the default parameter values.” Also, I’m not sure it needs it because the document is short, but an ‘at-a-glance’ table comparing the policies which includes the recommendations might be useful. Sara. > On 22 Jan 2018, at 13:29, Brian Haberman <[email protected]> wrote: > > All, > This message starts a two week WG Last Call on advancing: > > Title : Padding Policy for EDNS(0) > Author : Alexander Mayrhofer > Filename : draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-03.txt > Pages : 9 > Date : 2018-01-17 > > as an Experimental document. The last call will end on February 5, 2018. > All substantive comments are to be sent to the mailing list for > discussions. Editorial comments can be sent to the document editor. > > Regards, > Brian & Tim > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
