Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9463 <draft-ietf-add-dnr-16> for your review

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Dan, Tommy, Med, Tiru, and Neil.

Dan, we have updated this document with your new contact information.  Please refresh your browser to see the latest:

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463.txt
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463-rfcdiff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463-auth48diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463-lastdiff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463-lastrfcdiff.html

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463-xmldiff1.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463-xmldiff2.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463-alt-diff.html

Tommy, Med, Tiru, and Neil, we have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page:

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9463

Thank you!

RFC Editor/lb


> On Sep 14, 2023, at 12:20 AM, Neil Cook <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I approve publication of this version also.
> 
> Thanks to everyone involved in getting this to RFC,
> 
> Neil



> On Sep 14, 2023, at 12:18 AM, tirumal reddy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Update looks good, I approve the publication.
> 
> Cheers,
> -Tiru



> On Sep 13, 2023, at 11:39 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Hi Lynne, all,
> 
> This changes look good to me. I approve the publication of this version.
> 
> Many thanks for all your effort.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med



> On Sep 13, 2023, at 6:48 PM, Tommy Jensen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Good day Lynne,
> 
> All my feedback was accounted for in Med's review. I approve publication of this document.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tommy



> On Sep 13, 2023, at 9:01 AM, Dan Wing <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> My company name changed.
> 
> on title page:
> OLD:
>                                                                 D. Wing
>                                                                  Citrix
> NEW:
>                                                                 D. Wing
>                                                    Cloud Software Group
> 
> on authors page:
> 
> OLD:
>   Dan Wing
>   Citrix Systems, Inc.
>   United States of America
>   Email: [e-mail]
> NEW:
>   Dan Wing
>   Cloud Software Group Holdings, Inc.
>   United States of America
>   Email: [e-mail]
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> -d
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 13, 2023, at 8:40 AM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi, Med.
>> 
>> Thank you very much for your prompt and informative replies!  We have updated this document per your emails below.
>> 
>> The latest files are posted here (please refresh your browser):
>> 
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463.txt
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463.pdf
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463.xml
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463-diff.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463-rfcdiff.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463-auth48diff.html
>> 
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463-alt-diff.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463-xmldiff1.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463-xmldiff2.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9463-alt-diff.html
>> 
>> Please review our updates carefully, and let us know if we missed anything.
>> 
>> Thanks again for your help!
>> 
>> RFC Editor/lb
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 12, 2023, at 4:12 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> 
>>> Re-,
>>> 
>>> Please find below some comments about the edited version:
>>> 
>>> (1) Abstract: add a missing "and"
>>> 
>>> OLD:
>>> This document specifies new DHCP and IPv6 Router Advertisement
>>> options to discover encrypted DNS resolvers (e.g., DNS over HTTPS,
>>> DNS over TLS, DNS over QUIC).
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>> 
>>> This document specifies new DHCP and IPv6 Router Advertisement
>>> options to discover encrypted DNS resolvers (e.g., DNS over HTTPS,
>>> DNS over TLS, and DNS over QUIC).
>>> 
>>> (2) Introduction: be more explicit this is about discovery of resolvers
>>> 
>>> OLD:
>>> This document focuses on the discovery of encrypted DNS protocols
>>> such as DNS over HTTPS (DoH) [RFC8484], DNS over TLS (DoT) [RFC7858],
>>> or DNS over QUIC (DoQ) [RFC9250] in local networks.
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>> This document focuses on the discovery of encrypted DNS resolvers which are using protocols
>>> such as DNS over HTTPS (DoH) [RFC8484], DNS over TLS (DoT) [RFC7858],
>>> or DNS over QUIC (DoQ) [RFC9250] in local networks.
>>> 
>>> (3) Section 3.1.3: simplify the ULA wording
>>> 
>>> OLD:
>>> Whether one or more IP addresses are returned in an Encrypted DNS
>>> option is deployment specific.  For example, a router embedding a
>>> recursive server or a forwarder has to include one single IP address
>>> pointing to one of its LAN-facing interfaces.  Typically, this IP
>>> address can be a private IPv4 address, a Link-Local address, a Unique
>>> Local IPv6 unicast Address (Unique Local Address (ULA)), or a Global
>>> Unicast Address (GUA).
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>> Whether one or more IP addresses are returned in an Encrypted DNS
>>> option is deployment specific.  For example, a router embedding a
>>> recursive server or a forwarder has to include one single IP address
>>> pointing to one of its LAN-facing interfaces.  Typically, this IP
>>> address can be a private IPv4 address, a Link-Local address, an IPv6 
>>> Unique Local Address (ULA), or a Global Unicast Address (GUA).
>>> 
>>> (3) Section 4.1: correct an error about the field name
>>> 
>>> OLD: 
>>>    An example of the authentication-domain-name encoding is shown in
>>>    Figure 2.  This example conveys the FQDN "doh1.example.com.", and
>>>    the resulting Option-length field is 18.
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>>    An example of the authentication-domain-name encoding is shown in
>>>    Figure 2.  This example conveys the FQDN "doh1.example.com.", and
>>>    the resulting ADN Length field is 18.
>>> 
>>> (4) Section 6.1: Revert to the initial wording for consistency with other fields
>>> 
>>> OLD:
>>> Service Priority:  The priority of this Encrypted DNS option instance
>>>    compared to other instances.  This 16-bit unsigned integer is
>>>    interpreted following the rules specified in Section 2.4.1 of
>>>    [RFC9460].
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>> Service Priority:  16-bit unsigned integer.  The priority of this Encrypted DNS option instance
>>>    compared to other instances.  This field is
>>>    interpreted following the rules specified in Section 2.4.1 of
>>>    [RFC9460].
>>> 
>>> Thank you. 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Med
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 12, 2023, at 12:56 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear RFC Editor, 
>>> 
>>> Please see inline. 
>>> 
>>> I let my co-authors further comments as appropriate. 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Med
>>> 
>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>> De : [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>>> Envoyé : samedi 9 septembre 2023 04:56
>>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>;
>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; add-
>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>> Objet : Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9463 <draft-ietf-add-dnr-16> for
>>>> your review
>>>> 
>>>> Authors,
>>>> 
>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
>>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML
>>>> file.
>>>> 
>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviated (running) document title, which
>>>> appears in the PDF:
>>>> FYI, we updated the abbreviated title to "DNR", along the lines of
>>>> the running title "DDR" in the companion document 9462 (draft-
>>>> ietf-add-ddr).
>>>> Please let us know if you prefer otherwise.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> Internet-Draft  Discovery of Network-designated Resolver
>>>> April 2023
>>>> 
>>>> Current PDF:
>>>> RFC 9463                          DNR
>>>> September 2023
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] OK
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Datatracker "idnits" output for the original
>>>> approved document included the following warning.  Please let us
>>>> know if any changes are needed as related to this warning:
>>>> 
>>>> == There are [sic] 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant
>>>> FQDNs in the
>>>>  document. -->
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] No change is needed. Idnits complains about "a1.a2.a3.a4" but that is not a name.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 1:  Please note that companion document
>>>> 9462 (draft-ietf-add-ddr) cites both RFCs 4861 and 8106 when
>>>> referring to IPv6 Router Advertisement options.  We have asked the
>>>> authors of that document if the same RFC should be cited in both
>>>> places.
>>>> 
>>>> Please note, however, that we do not see any mention of Router
>>>> Advertisement options in RFC 4861 - only Neighbor Discovery
>>>> options.
>>>> 
>>>> Would you like to see how/if draft-ietf-add-ddr updates its
>>>> comparable citation and update this document (or not) to match?
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> In particular, the document specifies how a local encrypted DNS
>>>> resolver can be discovered by connected hosts by means of DHCPv4
>>>> [RFC2132], DHCPv6 [RFC8415], and IPv6 Router Advertisement (RA)
>>>> [RFC4861] options. -->
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] It would be good if DDR aligns with this, but we leave that to DDR authors to decide. No change is needed to DNR.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3:  This sentence did not parse.  We
>>>> removed the colon (":").  If this is incorrect, please clarify
>>>> "and Neighbor Discovery protocol (Section 6): Encrypted DNS
>>>> options".
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> This document describes how a DNS client can discover local
>>>> encrypted  DNS resolvers using DHCP (Sections 4 and 5) and
>>>> Neighbor Discovery  protocol (Section 6): Encrypted DNS options.
>>>> 
>>>> Currently:
>>>> This document describes how a DNS client can discover local
>>>> encrypted  DNS resolvers using DHCP (Sections 4 and 5) and
>>>> Neighbor  Discovery protocol (Section 6) Encrypted DNS options. --
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] OK.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2:  Should "the encrypted DNS is
>>>> discovered"
>>>> be "encrypted DNS resolvers are discovered"?  If the suggested
>>>> text is not correct, please clarify.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> If the encrypted DNS is discovered by a host using both RA and
>>>> DHCP,  the rules discussed in Section 5.3.1 of [RFC8106] MUST be
>>>> followed.
>>>> 
>>>> Suggested:
>>>> If encrypted DNS resolvers are discovered by a host using both RA
>>>> and DHCP, the rules discussed in Section 5.3.1 of [RFC8106] MUST
>>>> be  followed. -->
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] The suggested text is better. Thanks.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.3:  As [I-D.ietf-dnsop-svcb-https] does
>>>> not have a Section 6.1 and the title of its Section 7.1 is '"alpn"
>>>> and "no-default-alpn"', we updated the cited section number
>>>> accordingly.
>>>> If this is incorrect, please provide the correct citation.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> ALPN-related considerations can be found in Section 6.1 of  [I-
>>>> D.ietf-dnsop-svcb-https].
>>>> 
>>>> Currently:
>>>> ALPN-related considerations
>>>> can be found in Section 7.1 of [RFC9460].
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] Good catch. Thanks. 
>>> 
>>>> (see
>>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
>>>> www.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9460.html%23section-
>>>> 7.1&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C543c6045d28f49
>>>> 3499fe08dbb0e0a6ac%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C63
>>>> 8298251434819527%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQI
>>>> joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pZ
>>>> PbJQ35JUDdQ5%2BjFN%2FMa3yPBZV4qKOr4gGsNOSjxsk%3D&reserved=0)-->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.4:  This sentence does not parse.  If
>>>> the suggested text is not correct, please provide clarifying text.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> Such considerations fall under the generic issue of handling
>>>> multiple  provisioning sources and which should not be dealt
>>>> within each option  separately as per the recommendation in
>>>> Section 12 of [RFC7227].
>>>> 
>>>> Suggested:
>>>> Such considerations fall under the generic issue of handling
>>>> multiple  provisioning sources and should not be processed in each
>>>> option  separately, as per the recommendation in Section 12 of
>>>> [RFC7227]. -->
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] OK. 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Should any of the artwork elements (<artwork>) be
>>>> tagged as sourcecode or another element?  Please review
>>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>> Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fmaterials%2Fsourcecode-
>>>> types.txt&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C543c6045
>>>> d28f493499fe08dbb0e0a6ac%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C
>>>> 0%7C638298251434819527%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDA
>>>> iLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sd
>>>> ata=22kRc4mRl1dWX6EBtFHzoKXIIxeLW5WtAPemy4BJDPE%3D&reserved=0>; if
>>>> the current list of preferred values for "type" does not contain
>>>> an applicable type, please let us know.  Also, it is acceptable to
>>>> leave the "type" attribute not set. -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] We don't have a suitable type for the ones in the draft. We can leave this unset. 
>>> 
>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Sections 4.1 and 5.1:  These definitions read
>>>> oddly, as the items preceding the colon are not the field name,
>>>> unlike all of the other field entries that follow each of them.
>>>> May we update as suggested?
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> Option-code:  OPTION_V6_DNR (TBA1, see Section 9.1) ...
>>>> Code:  OPTION_V4_DNR (TBA2, see Section 9.2).
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] Please keep the original as this is a convention used in DHCP documents. Thanks. 
>>> 
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> OPTION_V6_DNR:  An Option Code (144; see Section 9.1).
>>>> ...
>>>> OPTION_V4_DNR:  An Option Code (162; see Section 9.2). -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Figure 3:  We changed the field name in the
>>>> diagram from "ipv6-address" to "ipv6-address(es)" per usage in the
>>>> rest of this document (e.g., "shown in Figure 3" in Section 6.1)
>>>> and also updated the figure title accordingly.  Please let us know
>>>> any objections.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> |                         ipv6-address                          |
>>>> ...
>>>> Figure 3: Format of the IPv6 Addresses Field
>>>> 
>>>> Currently:
>>>> |                       ipv6-address(es)                        |
>>>> ...
>>> 
>>> [Med] Please keep the original figure as it is correct. Each field includes only one IP address, but multiple fields with each an IP address can be included if needed.
>>> 
>>>> Figure 3: Format of the ipv6-address(es) Field -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] OK to update the title as suggested. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.2:  Section 18.2.5 of RFC 8415 does not
>>>> explicitly mention the Option Request Option or "ORO".  Please
>>>> confirm that the citation for Section 18.2.5 of RFC 8415 will be
>>>> clear to readers.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> To discover an encrypted DNS resolver, the DHCPv6 client MUST
>>>> include  OPTION_V6_DNR in an Option Request Option (ORO), as in
>>>> Sections  18.2.1, 18.2.2, 18.2.4, 18.2.5, 18.2.6, and 21.7 of
>>>> [RFC8415]. -->
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] The original text is OK as that section is explicitly listed in the template in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7227#section-21 (cited as 18.1.4 of 3315 which was replaced since then by RFC8415).
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.2:  Should 'multiple DNR instance data'
>>>> be 'multiple "DNR Instance Data" field entries' here?  If the
>>>> suggested text is not correct, please provide clarifying text.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> The DHCPv4 client MUST be prepared to receive multiple DNR
>>>> instance  data in the OPTION_V4_DNR option; each instance is to be
>>>> treated as a  separate encrypted DNS resolver.
>>>> 
>>>> Suggested:
>>>> The DHCPv4 client MUST be prepared to receive multiple "DNR
>>>> Instance  Data" field entries in the OPTION_V4_DNR option; each
>>>> instance is to  be treated as a separate encrypted DNS resolver. -
>>>> ->
>>> 
>>> [Med] Works for me. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.1:  We see that Figure 7 has the
>>>> "0 ... 1 ... 2 ... 3" ruler markers above the
>>>> "0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ..." ruler lines but Figures 1 and 3 do not.
>>>> (We're not sure whether or not Figures 4 and 5 would also apply
>>>> here.)  Would you like to place additional ruler-marker lines over
>>>> Figures 1 and 3, and perhaps Figures 4 and 5?  (For example,
>>>> similar figures in companion document 9464 (draft-ietf-ipsecme-
>>>> add-ike) all include the additional ruler-marker line.)
>>>> 
>>>> Original (best viewed with a fixed-point font such as Courier):
>>>> 0                   1                   2                   3
>>>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 -
>>>> ->
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] OK to add those to Figures 1/3 and similar line to Figures 4/5.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.1: FYI, in Figure 7, rather than insert
>>>> the value for TBA3 (144), we put the word "Type" to correspond to
>>>> the text below the figure. Please let us know if you prefer
>>>> otherwise.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> |     TBA3      |     Length    |        Service Priority       |
>>>> 
>>>> Current:
>>>> |     Type      |     Length    |        Service Priority       |
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] OK.
>>> 
>>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.1:  We changed 'Service Parameters
>>>> field' to '"Service Parameters (SvcParams)" field' per the field
>>>> name.  Please let us know any objections.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> SvcParams Length:  16-bit unsigned integer.  This field indicates
>>>> the
>>>>  length of the Service Parameters field in octets.
>>>> 
>>>> Currently:
>>>> SvcParams Length:  16-bit unsigned integer.  This field indicates
>>>> the
>>>>  length of the "Service Parameters (SvcParams)" field in
>>>> octets. -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] OK.
>>> 
>>>> 16) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.1:  We defined "CA" as "Certificate
>>>> Authority"
>>>> per companion document 9464 (draft-ietf-ipsecme-add-ike).  If this
>>>> is incorrect, please provide the correct definition.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> The attacker can get a domain name with a domain-  validated
>>>> public certificate from a CA and host an encrypted DNS  resolver.
>>>> 
>>>> Currently:
>>>> The attacker can get a domain name with a domain-  validated
>>>> public certificate from a Certificate Authority (CA) and  host an
>>>> encrypted DNS resolver. -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] OK.
>>> 
>>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.1:  It appears that "but cannot
>>>> provide"
>>>> refers to the endpoint, but does it refer to the mechanisms?
>>> 
>>> [Med] It refers to the mechanisms.
>>> 
>>> If
>>>> the endpoint, may we update as suggested?
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> The above mechanisms would ensure that the endpoint receives the
>>>> correct configuration information of the encrypted DNS resolvers
>>>> selected by the DHCP server (or RA sender), but cannot provide any
>>>> information about the DHCP server or the entity hosting the DHCP
>>>> server (or RA sender).
>>>> 
>>>> Suggested ("endpoint can receive ... but cannot provide"):
>>>> The above mechanisms would ensure that the endpoint can receive
>>>> the  correct configuration information of the encrypted DNS
>>>> resolvers  selected by the DHCP server (or RA sender) but cannot
>>>> provide any  information about the DHCP server or the entity
>>>> hosting the DHCP  server (or RA sender). -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 18) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.4:  We see that "PSK" has been defined
>>>> but not "WPA".  Will this abbreviation be clear to readers?  If
>>>> not, how should it be defined?
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> If the pre-shared key (PSK) is the same for all clients that
>>>> connect  to the same WLAN (e.g., WPA-PSK), the shared key will be
>>>> available to  all nodes, including attackers.
>>>> 
>>>> Possibly:
>>>> If the pre-shared key (PSK) is the same for all clients that
>>>> connect  to the same WLAN (e.g., Wi-Fi Protected Access Pre-Shared
>>>> Key  (WPA-PSK)), the shared key will be available to all nodes,
>>>> including attackers. -->
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] ACK.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 19) <!-- [rfced] Section 8:  To what does "but does not" refer in
>>>> this sentence - the mechanism, or the DHCP client or IPv6 host?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] This refers to the mechanisms.
>>> 
>>>> Also, we see "mechanisms specified in this document" in Sections
>>>> 3.1.9 and 3.4.  Which mechanism is referred to here?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] We refer to all of them. Please make this change: s/mechanism defined/mechanisms defined
>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> The
>>>> mechanism defined in this document can be used to infer that a
>>>> DHCP  client or IPv6 host support encrypted DNS options, but does
>>>> not  explicitly reveal whether local DNS clients are able to
>>>> consume these  options or infer their encryption capabilities. -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 20) <!-- [rfced] References:  We could not find a connection
>>>> between the Unicode Consortium and the [Evil-Twin] Wikipedia page.
>>>> If the "Possibly" text is not correct, please provide an
>>>> appropriate URL for "Evil twin (wireless networks)".
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> [Evil-Twin]
>>>>          The Unicode Consortium, "Evil twin (wireless
>>>> networks)",
>>>> 
>>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>> Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40ora
>>>> nge.com%7C543c6045d28f493499fe08dbb0e0a6ac%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b
>>>> 9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638298251434819527%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8e
>>>> yJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%
>>>> 7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NObhhyKiZa0tBeo4TFNWs5H9tW7BtZJBbkucSTIOAoQ%
>>>> 3D&reserved=0
>>>>          Evil_twin_(wireless_networks)>.
>>>> 
>>>> Possibly:
>>>> [Evil-Twin]
>>>>          Wikipedia, "Evil twin (wireless networks)", November
>>>>          2022
>>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>> Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40ora
>>>> nge.com%7C543c6045d28f493499fe08dbb0e0a6ac%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b
>>>> 9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638298251434819527%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8e
>>>> yJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%
>>>> 7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NObhhyKiZa0tBeo4TFNWs5H9tW7BtZJBbkucSTIOAoQ%
>>>> 3D&reserved=0
>>>>          Evil_twin_(wireless_networks)>. -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] Works for me. Thanks.
>>> 
>>>> 21) <!-- [rfced] References:  We could not find a connection
>>>> between the Unicode Consortium and the [Krack] paper.  Should
>>>> author Mathy Vanhoef be listed instead?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] Yes, please.
>>> 
>>>> Also, please confirm that the provided URL is stable.
>>> 
>>> [Med] We can use this more stable link: " https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3133956.3134027". Please update also the title to "Key Reinstallation Attacks: Forcing Nonce Reuse in WPA2".
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> [Krack]    The Unicode Consortium, "Key Reinstallation Attacks",
>>>>          2017,
>>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>> Fwww.krackattacks.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange
>>>> .com%7C543c6045d28f493499fe08dbb0e0a6ac%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b925
>>>> 3b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638298251434819527%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW
>>>> IjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3
>>>> 000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MSuNjA%2BB3M5PfKmff2fVBqrp1S%2FeunV0G8C6gta1rdI
>>>> %3D&reserved=0>. -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 22) <!-- [rfced] References:  We could not find a connection
>>>> between the Unicode Consortium and the [Dragonblood] paper.  Also,
>>>> the provided URL appears to be a personal URL.
>>>> 
>>>> Will the currently listed URL remain stable?  Is there a site
>>>> related to the Unicode Consortium that also provides this paper?
>>>> If not, should the authors (Mathy Vanhoef and Eyal Ronen) be
>>>> credited?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] We can cite the authors + use this stable link instead (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9152782).
>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> [Dragonblood]
>>>>          The Unicode Consortium, "Dragonblood: Analyzing the
>>>>          Dragonfly Handshake of WPA3 and EAP-pwd",
>>>> 
>>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>> Fpapers.mathyvanhoef.com%2Fdragonblood.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.
>>>> boucadair%40orange.com%7C543c6045d28f493499fe08dbb0e0a6ac%7C90c7a2
>>>> 0af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638298251434819527%7CUnknown%
>>>> 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwi
>>>> LCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Fofu9ZA4AqH1JiT5aAJNvLU9VQipk
>>>> qMwRVkQbZMVdYc%3D&reserved=0>. -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 23) <!-- [rfced] References:  We could not find any mention of
>>>> Cisco on the provided web page.  We updated this listing as noted
>>>> below.  If this is incorrect, please provide the correct title and
>>>> the matching URL.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> [dot1x]    Cisco, "Basic 802.1x Wireless User Authentication",
>>>> 
>>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>> Fopenwrt.org%2Fdocs%2Fguide-
>>>> user%2Fnetwork%2Fwifi%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange
>>>> .com%7C543c6045d28f493499fe08dbb0e0a6ac%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b925
>>>> 3b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638298251434819527%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW
>>>> IjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3
>>>> 000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gL6D7KzP2AvooWUD%2BTo92r0eh6U40nJIjjXkM8RrzoI%3
>>>> D&reserved=0
>>>>          wireless.security.8021x>.
>>>> 
>>>> Currently:
>>>> [dot1x]    OpenWrt, "Introduction to 802.1X", December 2021,
>>>> 
>>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>> Fopenwrt.org%2Fdocs%2Fguide-
>>>> user%2Fnetwork%2Fwifi%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange
>>>> .com%7C543c6045d28f493499fe08dbb0e0a6ac%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b925
>>>> 3b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638298251434819527%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW
>>>> IjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3
>>>> 000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gL6D7KzP2AvooWUD%2BTo92r0eh6U40nJIjjXkM8RrzoI%3
>>>> D&reserved=0
>>>>          wireless.security.8021x>. -->
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] Works for me.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 24) <!-- [rfced] References:  We see on the provided URL, under
>>>> the "Versions" tab, that quite a few versions have been added
>>>> since December 2019 (Release 16.3.0).  Should this listing be
>>>> updated?
>>>> We see that the latest version (Release 18 / version 18.3.0, dated
>>>> June 2023) also mentions "protocol configuration options" and
>>>> "ePCO".
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] Thank you for checking. We can update the reference entry to point to the latest rel/ver.
>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> [TS.24008] 3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification;
>>>> Core
>>>>          network protocols; Stage 3 (Release 16)", December
>>>> 2019,
>>>> 
>>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>> Fwww.3gpp.org%2FDynaReport%2F24008.htm&data=05%7C01%7Cmohamed.bouc
>>>> adair%40orange.com%7C543c6045d28f493499fe08dbb0e0a6ac%7C90c7a20af3
>>>> 4b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638298251434819527%7CUnknown%7CTW
>>>> FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX
>>>> VCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0nbE1Xf4OHcuFGd0NTLCXVFtuEaY1am9%
>>>> 2BprJtryl3ew%3D&reserved=0>. -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 25) <!-- [rfced] Acknowledgments:  We found this sentence
>>>> confusing, as Section 7.3.1 of [RFC8310] says "... does not
>>>> provide an authentication domain name for the DNS resolver" and
>>>> "This document does not specify or request any DHCP extension to
>>>> provide authentication domain names".  The current text seems to
>>>> indicate the opposite.  Will this text be clear to readers, or
>>>> should it be updated?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] That text is meant to ACK that RFC8310 identified DHCP as a candidate to convey ADN (although it does not specify how). What about:
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>> 
>>> The use of DHCP as a candidate protocol to retrieve an authentication domain name was
>>> mentioned in Section 7.3.1 of [RFC8310] and in an Internet-Draft
>>> authored by Tom Pusateri and Willem Toorop
>>> [I-D.pusateri-dhc-dns-driu].
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> The use of DHCP to retrieve an authentication domain name was
>>>> discussed in Section 7.3.1 of [RFC8310] and in an Internet-Draft
>>>> authored by Tom Pusateri and Willem Toorop  [I-D.pusateri-dhc-dns-
>>>> driu].
>>>> 
>>>> Possibly *:
>>>> An issue related to using DHCP to retrieve an ADN is discussed in
>>>> Section 7.3.1 of [RFC8310].  [DNS-TLS-DHCPv6-Options], authored by
>>>> Tom Pusateri and Willem Toorop, discusses ways to address the
>>>> issue.
>>>> 
>>>> * Per this text from [I-D.pusateri-dhc-dns-driu]:
>>>> This document was motivated in part by Section 7.3.1 of
>>>> [RFC8310].
>>>> Thanks to the authors Sara Dickinson, Daniel Kahn Gillmor, and
>>>> Tirumaleswar Reddy for documenting the issue. -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 26) <!-- [rfced] Acknowledgments:  Please confirm that, unlike the
>>>> other individuals listed here, Rich Salz did more than one review
>>>> ("secdir reviews").
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] I confirm.
>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> Thanks to Rich Salz for the secdir reviews, Joe Clarke for the
>>>> ops-  dir review, Robert Sparks for the artart review, and David
>>>> Blacka for  the dnsdir review. -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 27) <!-- [rfced] Contributors section:  Per RFC 7322 (RFC Style
>>>> Guide), we changed "Contributing Authors" to "Contributors".
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] OK.
>>> 
>>>> If desired, you can add some information to the Contributors
>>>> section to describe their contributions.
>>> 
>>> [Med] No change is needed.
>>> 
>>> If Nicolai Leymann and
>>>> Zhiwei Yan should be credited as coauthors, the following could be
>>>> added (e.g., see RFC 9089).
>>>> Please let us know how you would like to proceed.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> 11.  Contributing Authors
>>>> 
>>>>  Nicolai Leymann
>>>> ...
>>>> 
>>>> Currently:
>>>> Contributors
>>>> 
>>>>  Nicolai Leymann
>>>> ...
>>>> 
>>>> Possibly:
>>>> The following people contributed to the content of this document
>>>> and  should be considered coauthors:
>>>> 
>>>>  Nicolai Leymann
>>>> ... -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 28) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of
>>>> the online Style Guide at
>>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>> Fwww.rfc-
>>>> editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05%7C
>>>> 01%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7C543c6045d28f493499fe08dbb0e0
>>>> a6ac%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C6382982514348195
>>>> 27%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJ
>>>> BTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=r%2BjtER12cPY%2B
>>>> VIbvQEusFVzZOXp0Z%2F3%2Fu3X%2F7sq85DQ%3D&reserved=0>,
>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>>>> 
>>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but
>>>> this should still be reviewed as a best practice. -->
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] All seems OK to me.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 29) <!-- [rfced] The following term appears to be used
>>>> inconsistently in this document.  Please let us know which form is
>>>> preferred.
>>>> 
>>>> Encrypted DNS Option (1 instance - last paragraph of Section 7.1)
>>>> /
>>>> Encrypted DNS option (23 instances) /
>>>> encrypted DNS option (1 instance - Section 8, Paragraph 1)*
>>>> 
>>>> * As it appears that the option is of type "Encrypted DNS", we
>>>> suggest "Encrypted DNS option".
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] Deal!
>>> 
>>>> Also, some field names are quoted, but some are not.  Would you
>>>> like to apply a consistent style (i.e., all quoted or none
>>>> quoted)?
>>>> Please review usage, and advise.
>>>> 
>>>> For example:
>>>> authentication-domain-name field
>>>> 
>>>> Option-length field
>>>> 
>>>> Type and Length fields
>>>> 
>>>> "DNR Instance Data" field
>>>> 
>>>> "Addr Length", "IPv4 Address(es)", and "Service Parameters
>>>> (SvcParams)" fields ... -->
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Med] I don't think a change is needed. However, we will report any when reviewing the edited version. Thanks. 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> 
>>>> RFC Editor/lb/ar
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 8, 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> 
>>> ...
>>>> RFC Editor
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> RFC9463 (draft-ietf-add-dnr-16)
>>>> 
>>>> Title            : DHCP and Router Advertisement Options for the
>>>> Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers (DNR)
>>>> Author(s)        : M. Boucadair, Ed., T. Reddy.K, Ed., D. Wing, N.
>>>> Cook, T. Jensen
>>>> WG Chair(s)      : David C Lawrence, Glenn Deen
>>>> Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke
>>> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>> 
>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>