> On 9 Mar 2022, at 14:49, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > §5.3.3 lists some protocol error scenarios that are considered fatal. > > If a peer encounters such an error condition it is considered a fatal > error. It SHOULD forcibly abort the connection using QUIC's > CONNECTION_CLOSE mechanism, and SHOULD use the DoQ error code > DOQ_PROTOCOL_ERROR. > > When is it ok not to abort the connection? Why is aborting the connection > recommended and not required if the errors are considered fatal? >
Hi, Many thanks for the comment (also made by others) - please see the update in version -11 which was just published, which we hope addresses your comment. We’ve added the text: "In some cases, it MAY instead silently abandon the connection, which uses fewer of the local resources but makes debugging at the offending node more difficult.” Best regards Sara. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
