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
