> On 20 Oct 2021, at 15:55, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > > As someone who doesn't pretend to understand the intricacies of Quic, and who > wants to see DoQ deployed: > > Is the issue here the organization of the 0RTT/early-data material in > draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic, or that the material is wrong or materially > insufficient? >
Paul, If you read the draft you will see it is the bulk the text is in 2 sections: a ’Specification’ section and an ‘Implementation requirements’ section and 0-RTT is covered in both. The topic is also mentioned in the Privacy Considerations section, so while it is mentioned in 3 places, it is in context. We’ve had some quite detailed review, particularly during WGLC, and we have no outstanding issues relating to the 0-RTT text at the moment, other than Ben’s suggestion to split it out. So I don’t believe the issue is with the content of that text. We’ll be putting out an -06 shortly (before the end of WGLC) and would appreciate further specific review of the text in that. Best regards Sara. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
