On 3/6/2020 6:12 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > Christian Huitema <[email protected]> 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.
Blame my poor editing skills, and use "doq". Sorry. > 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. OK. > 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. OK, will fix. > Sections 5.7 and 4.3 seem to be restating the same things in different > ways. They should probably be merged into one. Will look. > > 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. Will do. This is indeed the intent. > 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. I just need to find the right way to do that with the markdown tools... -- Christian Huitema _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
