Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: 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-bcp-op/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A couple of small comments/questions: 1) RFC2119/RFC8174 disclaimer is present in section 4, however, it does seem to be the case that normative language is used. I would recommend to actually use normative language in this doc! 2) Can you actually provide references for the techniques listed in Table 1? 3) Sec 5.1.3.1: “A DNS-over-TLS privacy service on both port 853 and 443. This practice may not be possible if e.g. the operator deploys DoH on the same IP address.” Isn’t 443 basically DoH? Why would you deploy DoT over 853? Is that a common practice? Sorry if I miss something... 4) As a side node to the AD and shepherd: Answer to question 7 in shepherd write-up is “(7) No IPR Disclosures” which does not really answer the question if all author have confirmed that they are not aware of any additional IPR they would need to disclose… _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
