On Oct 20, 2021, at 8:37 AM, Sara Dickinson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> 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? >> > > 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.
I apologize for doing what I really dislike other people doing: writing about a draft I have not read in a long time. I have now read -06 with an eye towards 0-RTT, and completely agree with you that the implementation requirements and suggestions are clear. A developer should have no problem finding them in the document even though they are in three places because those three places are well-labeled. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
