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

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

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.
> 
> 
>