Thank you, Daniel, for the review. We have updated the draft to address your comments. Please see inline responses for the comments we did not address.
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 at 17:00, Daniel Migault <mglt.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > I believe the document is ready, please find some comments. > > 3. DNS Filtering Techniques and Their Limitations > > 1 and 2 do not work with DNSSEC is my primary concern and probably this needs > to be mentioned. > > Thanks, updated. > > 3 and 4. in my opinion could be merged. > > We prefer not to merge 3 and 4. > > section 4. > > I am wondering if there is a recommendation to use only text versus other > (Unicode Characters) or not and if there is a common reasonable size. > > Regarding the use of text versus Unicode characters, the draft does not currently mandate or restrict the use of Unicode characters. I don't think size is an issue as the DNS messages are encrypted using DoT/DoH/DoQ. > > Maybe EDE can be expanded when first used - unless I am missing this has been > done. > > section 5.2 > > "Servers may decide to return small..." this might be a bit more normative > language and it would be good to have a recommended value. > > Updated text in Section 5.2 for better clarity, please see https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error/blob/main/draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error.md > > > section 5.3 > > The response MUST be received over an encrypted DNS channel. If > not, the requestor MUST discard data in the EXTRA-TEXT field. > > I would like the proposal to make it possible to respond with a signed JOSE - > bound to ANSWER, INFO-CODE. > > I don't get the comment, please elaborate. > > I agree with relaxing the iANA registry for suberrors. > > Please see my response https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/z-bj0uue3uhhWAUGgtN3qSzW1w4/ on the reason behind the strict registration policy for the IANA registry. > > I agree with the language tag as well. > > Addressed. Cheers, -Tiru > > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 11:11 PM Benno Overeinder <be...@nlnetlabs.nl> > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> The draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error has seen several revisions and >> there has been considerable discussion on the mailing list and in the >> WG. At IETF 116, Gianpaolo Scalone (Vodafone) and Ralf Weber (Akamai) >> presented a proof of concept of this specification. >> >> The authors and the WG chairs believe the draft is ready for a Working >> Group Last Call. >> >> >> This initiates the Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for >> draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error, "Structured Error Data for >> Filtered DNS." >> >> The draft can be reviewed here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error/ >> >> Intended Status: Proposed Standard >> Document Shepherd: Benno >> >> Please take the time to review this draft and share any relevant >> comments. For the WGLC to be effective, we need both positive support >> and constructive feedback; a simple lack of objection isn’t enough. >> >> If you believe this draft is ready for publication as an RFC, please >> state your support. Conversely, if you feel the document isn’t ready >> for publication, please provide your concerns and reasoning. >> >> This starts a two-week Working Group Last Call process, concluding on >> November 9, 2024. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Suzanne >> Tim >> Benno >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org >> > > > -- > Daniel Migault > Ericsson > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
