Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: No Objection
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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Please explicitly state that, IIUC, these XoT connections use the DoT ALPN. - There ought to be a warning somewhere that mTLS verifies that the CA has verified identity, while IP ACLs merely prove that the bearer can observe the path to the address. The former is much stronger than the latter, unless there are more mechanisms built into the ACL than are obvious from the text here. - Please educate me: from my skim of the RFCs AXFR has message IDs, but IFXR does not. So how would a client demux IFXR responses? _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
