Thanks for addressing my comments. I have checked -11 version and it looks good to me for my comments.
//Zahed > On 22 Mar 2022, at 10:38, Sara Dickinson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 9 Mar 2022, at 11:35, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Zaheduzzaman Sarker 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 a lot for working on this specification. Thanks to Brian Trammell for >> the TSVART review. > > Many thanks for the comments - please see the updates in version -11 which > was just published, which we hope address your comments. > >> >> I have following comments and I think addressing them will improve this >> documentation- >> >> * Section 5.3.3 - should also list the protocol error case related to >> session resumption and 0-RTT, and put a reference to section 5.5 for further >> details. > > We’ve added a bullet point: > “ * receiving a "replayable" transaction in O-RTT data (for servers > not willing to handle this case - see section Section 5.5)” > >> >> * Section 5.2 says - >> >> "Implementations MAY impose a limit on the number of such dangling >> streams. If limits are encountered, implementations MAY close the >> connection." >> >> However, I have not notices any indication of how this limits can be >> set. I would be great if we can say how the implementer can enforce the >> normative "MAY". > > We’ve updated the text in section 5.2 based on other comments we have to more > clearly specify when streams are ’dangling' so please review. > > Best regards > > Sara.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
