Looks good, thanks. —John
On Mar 22, 2022, at 5:40 AM, Sara Dickinson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 10 Mar 2022, at 14:25, John Scudder via Datatracker <[email protected]<mailto:[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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Wu89gEt6BSBMlrVVVqtPKEgp2gFbSm-kD7hYo_PGJgCh-sP7Sw9WRCqRg5c79Q$ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Wu89gEt6BSBMlrVVVqtPKEgp2gFbSm-kD7hYo_PGJgCh-sP7Sw9WRCrpa1JmiQ$ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
