> On 4 Mar 2020, at 21:32, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote: > > Hi, Sara, and thanks for the response. > >>> — Section 5.1.1 — >>> >>> o DNS-over-TLS [RFC7858] and [RFC8310]. >>> o DoH [RFC8484]. >>> >>> There’s no reason to hyphenate the former, and the latter should also be >>> expanded here: >>> >>> NEW >>> o DNS over TLS [RFC7858] and [RFC8310]. >>> o DNS over HTTPS [RFC8484]. >>> END >>> >>> Similarly, take the hyphens out of “DNS over DTLS” in the next paragraph, >>> and >>> out of “DNS over TLS” throughout the document. >> >> Depends which draft you look at :-( >> RFC7858 uses DNS-over-TLS, RFC8484 uses DNS over HTTPS, other drafts also >> hyphenate…. >> >> I happen to find the hyphenated form improves readability but can live with >> removing it (or using >> only the acronyms throughout) for consistency….. > > OK... While I see no justification for hyphens (they're not compound > modifiers or anything like that), it's just a comment, and if you like > the hyphens then please leave them in. The RPC will weigh in when > they do their edits, and we can let them make the final decision. :-)
Ack. > >>> — Section 8 — >>> For a document such as this, the Security Considerations sectiin seems very >>> meagre. As the Sec ADs have not called this out, I’ll presume they think >>> it’s >>> OK, and I won’t press the issue. Perhaps all relevant information is >>> already >>> elsewhere in the document. >> >> Since this draft is really collecting together a set of existing techniques >> I think the feeling was that >> the reference for each technique should cover the security issues… If there >> were any new issues >> from combining specific techniques then they should be called out here but I >> don’t remember any >> being raised. > > OK, and that fits in with the Sec ADs thinking it's OK. All good, and > nothing to see here. Thank you! Sara. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
