Subject: [dns-privacy] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 05:40:23 -0700

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-06: No Objection

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

Thank you for this document.  I found it interesting and easy to read.

A few minor comments/nits that I spotted whilst reading this document:

"in clear (i.e., unencrypted)." => "unencrypted."
"However there is" => "However, there is"
"designed for TCP, not UDP and new" => "designed for TCP, not UDP, and new"
"It can be noted also that" => "It can also be noted that"
"Both are a big privacy concern" => "Both are significant privacy concerns"
"de-NAT DNS queries dns-de-nat [3]" => "de-NAT DNS queries [3]"?

Regards,
Rob

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:00:55 -0400

Rob

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis/
Thanks for these - the last one appears to be a markdown reference fail.
I'll make sure it's worked out

thanks
tim