On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 2:04 AM Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-06: Yes > > 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-rfc7626-bis/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [[ questions ]] > > [ section 6.1.1.1 ] > > * Does "Strict DoT" have a definition somewhere? I couldn't find one > in 8499 nor in 7858. > > Erik There is not a definition for "Strict DoT", but DNSOP has a CfA out on updating 8499-bis with some updates which will include Strict DoT. > [[ nits ]] > > [ section 1 ] > > * "sent in clear", consider perhaps: "sent in the clear" > > [ section 4.1 ] > > * "those transaction" -> "those transactions" > > [ section 6.1.1 ] > > * "to limited subset" -> "to a limited subset" > > [ section 6.1.3 ] > > * "know to be used" -> "known to be used" > > > Thanks - updated all of these tim
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
