Sara, Thank you for your reply. This sounds reasonable and I have also read Christian's reply about IANA.
As soon as the -10 is published, I will proceed with the IESG evaluation. Regards -éric -----Original Message----- From: Sara Dickinson <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, 23 February 2022 at 11:17 To: Eric Vyncke <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Last Call Expired: <draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-09.txt> Hi Eric, The authors did ask Phillip directly if he had specific text changes he would like to see following his review during the first IETF Last Call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/Iu7lg5AvF9Mx4Tu-gflASArOF8A/ However we did not get a reply and so we attempted to address that review in the -09 update (published on 9th February) based on a github issue with discussion points and a PR referenced in this email: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/oRHkyjhupzQj0HApzLprvE4V7_s/ Since we didn’t get any further feedback on this review during the second IETF LC, I’m hoping those updates addressed the points raised. FYI - we have a pending PR to fix the minor issue noted in the latest IANA review, which was the only comment we got during the second IETF LC. So we’ll publish the -10 update with this correction shortly. Regards Sara. > On 23 Feb 2022, at 09:47, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > The IETF-wide last call has expired and AFAIK there was only one detailed review by Phillip Hallam-Baker for the security directorate (added in cc): > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/L23bWOxP54NZQPHT7DfRBxZAOCw/ > > What is the authors/WG plan to address the "has issues" of this review ? You probably know that the cut-off date is Monday 7th of March. > > As a plain engineer (and without any hat), it appears to me that the Wi-Fi hotspot issue is not limited to DoQ but is also relevant to DoH. And the traffic analysis part is probably addressed already with the padding. > > With my AD hat, the points about 'outdated' security considerations and privacy vs. confidentiality should be addressed in the document (happy to be corrected of course). Anyway, it would be nice to answer to PHB. > > Regards > > -éric > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dns-privacy <[email protected]> on behalf of DraftTracker Mail System <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, 23 February 2022 at 09:43 > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Eric Vyncke <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: [dns-privacy] Last Call Expired: <draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-09.txt> > > > Please DO NOT reply to this email. > > I-D: <draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-09.txt> > Datatracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/ > > IETF Last Call has ended, and the state has been changed to > Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. > > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy > _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
