Hi Sara, Updates sound good. Thanks for checking.
Regards, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Sara Dickinson <[email protected]> > Sent: 06 May 2021 12:58 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> > Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over- > tls-11: (with COMMENT) > > > > > 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
