On 26/11/2018 15:37, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Ah! That is interesting to hear. Any links that you have to that would be greatly appreciated.
(I meant UKNOF, not UKNOT) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tMGD6J04Jk Sara took a *lot* of off-mic discussion after that session, too.
You may feel differently, but I saw no comments during WG or IETF Last Call that indicated that any mismatches still existed. If you feel that they do, the DOH WG is still open, and a draft describing the problems could garner interest.
I believe that the protocol level impedance mismatches were resolved by WGLC. The big one of course was the packet size discussion.
Then why aren't the objections aimed at that implementer instead of the spec? Any implementer can misuse any spec badly: that doesn't make the spec itself bad. The operational documents that come to the DNSOP WG are often about those situations.
I'm don't beleive that we are hearing many complaints about the spec as such. The vast majority of what I'm hearing are complaints about the
deployment model. Ray _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
