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

[Dan Wing <[e-mail]>]

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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>