> On 13 Jul 2020, at 07:34, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Stéphane, > > This is a little late in the process as the BCP has been approved last > Thursday after IESG review ;-) > > OTOH, this is editorial changes and do not change the core of the document. > > So, I suggest to upload quickly a new revision before it goes in the RFC > Editor queue (where those changes could still happen in AUTH48 state). You, > Sara, and I are in European time zone, so, let's act quickly this Monday > morning >
Done. Sara. > -éric > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> > Organization: NIC France > Date: Saturday, 11 July 2020 at 09:48 > To: Sara Dickinson <[email protected]> > Cc: DNS Privacy Working Group <[email protected]>, Eric Vyncke > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-13.txt > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 09:41:07AM +0100, > Sara Dickinson <[email protected]> wrote > a message of 61 lines which said: > >> This version should address the final comments from the IESG review. > > Some very small editorial details: > > Abstract "to assist writers of a Recursive operator Privacy statement" > Capital S, for the acronym. > > Section 1 "These open resolvers have tended" Rather "public resolvers" > to be consistent with the rest of the paragraph and with RFC 8499. > > Section 5.3.1 "Run a copy of the root zone on loopback [RFC7706]" > should now be written "Run a local copy of the root zone [RFC8806]". > > Appendix D.2 "Both POST and GET are supported" Can probably be deleted > since RFC 8484 says "DoH servers MUST implement both the POST and GET > methods." > > > _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
