The shepherd's write-up has been updated to align with the draft.
Brian On 8/5/23 2:01 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
Hello Paul, Thanks for your reply, look below for EV2> but, in short, we are all set *except* for the shepherd's write-up . Regards -éric On 05/08/2023, 02:53, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoff...@icann.org <mailto:paul.hoff...@icann.org>> wrote: On Jul 31, 2023, at 8:29 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> 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.*You and the shepherd are already discussing this on the mailing list. EV2> I guess you meant "we" and not "you", but whatever we need a resolution for this.# 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.This is a ripe topic for a statement from the various RFC stream managers so that we document authors will know what to expect. I do hope those comments are non-blocking. EV2> of course this is not blocking, sorry if I was not clear.# 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.Got it: "serve the same zones" versus "have the same replies". We'll make that change in -10. EV2> Thanks# 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.Sure, I'll make a run at that for -10 as well.# Section 4.2 Is there any chance to also use an IPv6 example ? EV> Obviously, there was no chance ;-)We chose to keep the examples consistent with each other. EV2> fait enough, though the 2 examples could be IPv6 ;-) (kidding here) I'll prep a -10, and we'll submit it next week. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
