Christian Huitema <huit...@huitema.net> wrote: > We just resubmitted the DNS over QUIC draft to DPRIVE. Thanks in advance > for the feedback!
Looks promising! I have a few comments: Is the ALPN "dq" or "doq"? 4.1 and 4.1.1 appear to disagree. 8.1 seems to disagree with itself. Section 4.3 (idle timeouts): it's clearly better to use QUIC's facilities for this, but there could potentially be a conflict with DNS stateful timeouts (RFC48490) so maybe there needs to be a bit more discussion about how to resolve disagreements between two protocol layers. Section 5.4 (response size): there was a HUGE discussion about this in the context of DoH and the consensus was to retain the 65535 byte message size limit. DoQ should do the same. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/fpJSGWI1YtHeTFvmrS7pvB7ZnDA/ The EDNS payload size limit only applies to Do53 UDP and should be ignored in other transports. Sections 5.7 and 4.3 seem to be restating the same things in different ways. They should probably be merged into one. Section 5.7.1 (connection reuse): possibly also worth stating that servers should not send responses in order. Maybe refer to RFC7766 which has similar requirements for TCP. An editorial suggestion: when referring to RFCs, can you please make it clear what the reference is about (e.g. the subject of the RFC or name of protocol) in the paragraph containing the reference, so that readers can understand the paragraph without having to bounce back and forth to the references section. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Dover, Wight: Northwest backing west 3 to 5. Slight or moderate. Showers at first. Good. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
