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

[Dan Wing <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 14, 2023, at 8:45 AM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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:


I reviewed the document and it all looks great.  Sorry for my delayed review.

-d


> 
>   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.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>