Stephane, I've just posted -04, which addresses your comments as follows:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> wrote: > * I would prefer 4.1 "no padding" and 4.2 "fixed length padding" to be > moved to an appendix to emphasize they are mentioned just for > completeness, not for actual implementation. Done, since i've seen one additional "+1". > * a RFC 7942 Implementation Status section could be cool, quoting > <http://edns0-padding.org/implementations/> I've decided to not add this. The reason for that is that there *are* a few implementations of Padding out there, but there's very little implementation of the actual recommended strategy in there. The link you quoted would have belonged to the original Padding draft, but then again,i only set up the website once the RFC was out ;) > * there is no mention of RFC 7858. Is padding useful except when the > data is encrypted? I don't think so. (Stephen Farrell made a similar > remark.) Added a note saying it's only relevant when transport is encrypted, and added a whole paragraph in the introduction to refer to 7858 and also 8094. best, Alex _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
