Hi,

Thanks for the quick response. See below.

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:36 PM Wessels, Duane <dwess...@verisign.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 22, 2021, at 11:50 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is a good document and I support publication.
> >
> > However, I do have some comments. I scanned the Last Call comments by
> > others, and they mostly seem like improvements, but some of my
> > comments below may duplicate others for which I apologize in advance.
> >
> >
> > Section 3, last paragraph: Cut out wishy-washy superfluous words. Be bold!
> > OLD
> > vice-versa.  However, it is the aim of this document to argue that
> > BETTER
> > vice-versa.  However, this document argues that
> > BEST
> > vice-versa.  However,
>
> Done!
>
> >
> > Although Cookies are mentioned in this draft with a reference to the
> > RFC 7873, it would be good to work in the point that the Cookies RFC
> > recommends use of TCP whenever Cookies are not available as a way to
> > get some of the benefits of Cookies. Thus, if I remember correctly,
> > someone following that RFC would use Cookies or, when they are not
> > available, TCP.
>
> The appendix entry for RFC 7873 said:
>
>     [RFC 7873] mentions DNS over TCP as a reasonable fallback mechanism when 
> DNS Cookies
>     are not available.
>
> The phrase "reasonable fallback" doesn't sit quite right with me so I changed 
> it to
> "...as an alternative mechanism...".  Does that work for you or were you 
> suggesting
> that this point be made in the body of the document rather than only in the 
> appendix?

Well, ideally it would be in the body of the document but it looks
like it would take a moderate amount of work to do that. I am
satisfied with the rewording in the appendix.

> > Section 9, last paragraph: Don't be so negative :-)
> > "not unlike" -> "similar to"
>
> Done.
>
> >
> > Make the name of Section 2 a bit more explicit, something like
> > "History of DNS over TCP"
>
> Yes, done.
>
> >
> > Section 1.1: Update as per RFC 8174.
>
> Done.
>
> >
> > Lots of references are good but I find it disturbing that all
> > technical references are shown as Informational. I think a lot of them
> > should be moved to Normative.
>
> I wondered about that as well.  I moved many of the standards track RFCs to 
> the normative section.  I will highlight this change when the next version is 
> posted and I hope someone lets us know if any of those are not appropriate 
> there.

Sounds good. Probably not a serious problem as I think all the
references that maybe should be normative are already standards track
so there won't be any down-references... Probably Document Shepherds
review and AD review will catch any further changes needed here.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e...@gmail.com

> DW

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to