Re: [dhcwg] Paul Wouters' Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-11: (with COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

Hi Paul,

Thank you for the review.

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : mardi 14 mars 2023 19:21
> À : The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]; opsawg-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Paul Wouters' Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-
> 11: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-11: Yes
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
> all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
> cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-
> positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT
> positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
> here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-
> dns/
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> COMMENT:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
>        This document targets deployments where a trusted
> relationship is in
>        place between the RADIUS client and server with
> communication optionally
>        secured by IPsec or Transport Layer Security (TLS)
> [RFC6614].
> 
> I don't understand what this sentence is trying to say.
> 

[Med] As per today, the use of ipsec/TLs are optional in RADIUS in trusted networks. As you know there is an effort to make ipsec/TLs mandatory even for trusted networks (and deprecate the use of plain UDP/TCP transport) and also move 6614 to standard track, but all of these are still individual drafts.

> Does table 7 really clarify the sentences used earlier that say
> exactly the
> same thing but more compact?
> 

[Med] Yes, this is a classic table in every RADISU attribute spec. 

> Why "Expert Review" and not "Specification Required" or "RFC
> Required" ?
> 

[Med] Expert Review is consistent with the policy used in RFC7037 for a similar registry (already cited in the draft).  

>     Registration requests are to be sent to radius-dhcp-
> [e-mail]
> 
> I thought we didn't put these emails in the documents anymore? But
> I guess IANA
> will get back to you on that.
> 
> NITS:
> 
>     As a reminder,
> 
> I would remove this part of the text.
> 

[Med] Will be fixed. Thanks.

> 


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.