Subject: [dns-privacy] Erik Kline's Yes on draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 23:04:21 -0700

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-06: 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-dprive-rfc7626-bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[ questions ]]

[ section 6.1.1.1 ]

* Does "Strict DoT" have a definition somewhere?  I couldn't find one
  in 8499 nor in 7858.

[[ nits ]]

[ section 1 ]

* "sent in clear", consider perhaps: "sent in the clear"

[ section 4.1 ]

* "those transaction" -> "those transactions"

[ section 6.1.1 ]

* "to limited subset" -> "to a limited subset"

[ section 6.1.3 ]

* "know to be used" -> "known to be used"

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 08:55:14 -0400

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/
Erik

There is not a definition for "Strict DoT", but DNSOP has a CfA out on
updating 8499-bis with
some updates which will include Strict DoT.

> Thanks - updated all of these

tim