> On 6 May 2021, at 10:16, Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Robert Wilton 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi, > > Thank you for this document. > > I was surprised by the length of this document - i.e., 40 pages to say to use > TLS rather than TCP, and noting that DoH is only 20 pages long! > > But in reality, this document seems to be more than just zone transfers over > TLS and seems to clarify/optimize various behavior related to using TCP > connection handling.
Indeed - it started out at about half this length and then grew, particularly with the updates to the earlier specifications were added! > > I have a few concrete suggestions that you are at liberty to handle as you see > fit: > > (1) Please ensure that the abstract accurately summarizes the focus on the > document, with a sentence of two summarizing the updates to RFC1995, RFC5936 > and RFC7766. Picked up in other reviews - I have suggested: “Additionally, this specification updates RFC1995 and RFC5936 with respect to efficient use of TCP connections, and RFC7766 with respect to the recommended number of connections between a client and server for each transport." > > (2) I presume that section 21.3 is intended to be deleted (since the > references > appear to only be from section 16 which is planned to be removed), if so > adding > a RFC editor note would be helpful. Correct - will add text. > > (3) It wasn't clear to me whether the text in the appendix is meant to be > normative or illustrative. It might be helpful to be clear which it is meant > to be. A good point - it is meant to be illustrative - I’ll add text to clarify. Many thanks! Sara. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
