Re: [dns-privacy] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: (with COMMENT)

[Sara Dickinson <[e-mail]>]

> On 9 Mar 2022, at 14:49, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: No Objection
> 
> 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-dprive-dnsoquic/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §5.3.3 lists some protocol error scenarios that are considered fatal.
> 
>   If a peer encounters such an error condition it is considered a fatal
>   error.  It SHOULD forcibly abort the connection using QUIC's
>   CONNECTION_CLOSE mechanism, and SHOULD use the DoQ error code
>   DOQ_PROTOCOL_ERROR.
> 
> When is it ok not to abort the connection?  Why is aborting the connection
> recommended and not required if the errors are considered fatal?
> 

Hi,

Many thanks for the comment (also made by others) - please see the update in version -11 which was just published, which we hope addresses your comment.

We’ve added the text:

"In some cases, it MAY
 instead silently abandon the connection, which uses fewer of the local resources
 but makes debugging at the offending node more difficult.”

Best regards

Sara.