We just published a new version of the draft,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/. We believe
this new version addresses the comments received during IESG review. The
changes were done in a series of pull request in our depot, visible
here: https://github.com/huitema/dnsoquic/pulls?q=is%3Apr. We collected
all the ballot reports, isolated the issues, and in most cases just
fixed them. There were just very exceptions, in which case we contacted
the individual IESG members and got them to agree that no change was
actually requested. As eric wrote, "addressing [ these points ] improved
the quality of the documents." Thanks to the IESG members for all the
feedback.
-- Christian Huitema
On 3/15/2022 3:40 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
Pull request https://github.com/huitema/dnsoquic/pull/159 addresses
the second comment from Francesca's review, and the similar comment
from Alvaro's review. It provides an alternative to "SHOULD forcibly
abort the connection using QUIC's CONNECTION_CLOSE mechanism", by
specifying that peers encountering fatal errors MAY silently abandon
the connection. This is in fact always an option, peers may silently
hang up at any time. In the case of such fatal errors, there is a
trade-off between silent close and explicit close, which provides more
information to the offending node but uses more of the local resource.
-- Christian Huitema
On 3/15/2022 11:39 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
I have entered issues in our repo for all the reviews by IESG members.
Ben Kaduk submitted an editorial PR, and it was accepted.
There is another PR being processed to address the clarification on
usage of 0RTT required by Ben and Lars --
https://github.com/huitema/dnsoquic/pull/158. Please review.
I will start another PR addressing Francesca and Alvaro's point.
After that, we may need an editorial pass for the other comments.
The goal should be to have a draft ready when the publishing window
reopens.
-- Christian Huitema
On 3/15/2022 8:59 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
Dear authors,
The revised I-D should mainly address Francesca Palombini's 2nd
COMMENT point (which was also raised by Alvaro Retana). Both of them
told me that they were about to raise a blocking DISCUSS on this
specific point, so let's address is. It is mainly about either
changing a SHOULD into a MUST or explaining when the SHOULD can be
ignored.
Of course, addressing the other points would improve the quality of
the documents.
Once a revised I-D addressing Francesca's point, I am approving the
document and sending it to the RFC Editor.
Regards
-éric
-----Original Message-----
From: IETF Secretariat <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, 10 March 2022 at 16:21
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, Eric Vyncke <[email protected]>
Subject: Datatracker State Update Notice:
<draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10.txt>
IESG state changed:
New State: Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed
(The previous state was IESG Evaluation)
Datatracker URL:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/
_______________________________________________
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
