Thank you for the -10 revision and its multiple changes. Alas, it seems that some points below are not fully addressed either by email or in the I-D. See the elided text below, looking for EV>
The only critical one is the discrepancy between the shepherd's write up point 4 and the I-D appendix A. This MUST be resolved before the IETF Last Call. (and sorry for the Outlook look of my reply ☹ ...) Regards, I sincerely hope that this thread has improved the quality of the document. -éric On 17/07/2023, 14:06, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: ... # Shepherd's write-ip The shepherd's write-up states "the WG would like to ensure that this list remains in the document once it is published as an RFC" but the appendix A states "RFC Editor: please remove this section before publication". I.e., the shepherd's write-up and the I-D MUST be coherent ;-) EV> we do need the shepherd's write-up and I-D being consistent on this point. *Let me know when either the shepherd's write-up or the I-D is modified.* # Section 1.1 I am always uneasy with the use of BCP14 normative language outside of a standard track or BCP document. EV> I have read Paul's reply, as long as authors are aware, let it be. Expect some non-blocking comments by some ADs during the IESG evaluation. # Section 3 This was probably discussed over the mailing list, but must DoT & DoQ replies be also identical to Do53 replies ? The current text is a little underspecified. Paul> The last paragraph of Section 3 says "An authoritative server implementing DoT or DoQ MUST authoritatively serve the same zones over all supported transports." How should we say that differently to be more specfied? EV> I still find the text a little unclear about the returned DNS replies (e.g., the answer section must be identical in Do53 and DoT). I am leaving the choice to the authors about whether to add further clarification text. # Section 3.5 Expect some comments during the IESG review if the SHOULDs do not have some wording about when the SHOULDs does not apply. EV> thanks, Paul, for explaining the somehow convoluted/complex clause "this might be limited by e.g. not receiving an EDNS(0) option in the query". You may consider rendering it easier to parse though. # Section 4.2 Is there any chance to also use an IPv6 example ? EV> Obviously, there was no chance ;-) _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
