Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-04: Yes
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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [ questions ]] [ section 3 ] * I assume it's not a big deal that sometimes the client cannot easily tell when its upstream IP address has changed (vis. RFC 7873 S6 considerations)? NAT makes it difficult to comply with the MUST for clients stated in section 8, but...what should a client do if only has, say, an RFC 1918 address and is quite likely to be behind a NAT? If its server is also a likely-NAT'd IP then it might presume no NAT between the two, but if the server has a global IP address...I suppose it can just rotate the per-server cookies once per year? [[ nits ]] [ section 1 ] * Final sentence of the final paragraph: "in a Client protecting fashion" -> "in a privacy protecting fashion"? (to match the abstract) [ section 8 ] * "five minute" -> "five minutes" _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
