> On 10 Mar 2022, at 14:25, John Scudder via Datatracker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > John Scudder 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for this, I found it clear and easy to read. I have just a couple > comments.
Hi John, Many thanks for the comments - please see the updates in version -11 which was just published, which we hope address your comments. > > 1. In §5.2, there is > > Servers MAY defer processing of a query until the STREAM FIN has been > indicated on the stream selected by the client. Servers and clients > MAY monitor the number of "dangling" streams for which the expected > queries or responses have been received but not the STREAM FIN. > Implementations MAY impose a limit on the number of such dangling > streams. If limits are encountered, implementations MAY close the > connection. > > Wouldn’t a stream be dangling even if the expected queries and responses > hadn’t > been received? I.e., isn’t the thing that makes a stream “dangling” simply the > lack of a STREAM FIN? We’ve updated the text in 5.2 related to dangling streams so please review to see if this clarifies the issue? > > 2. In §5.4, > > Client and servers > that send packets over a connection discarded by their peer MAY > receive a stateless reset indication. > > This seems like a misuse of the RFC 2119 MAY. Do you mean "may" or better > still, "might" or "could"? If you really mean the 2119 keyword, then a rewrite > seems to be in order to put this in terms of the other party being permitted > to > send the reset. We’ve changed MAY to might - thanks! Best regards Sara. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
