Re: [dns-privacy] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic-00.txt

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

On 3/6/2020 6:12 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Christian Huitema <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> We just resubmitted the DNS over QUIC draft to DPRIVE. Thanks in advance
>> for the feedback!
> Looks promising! I have a few comments:
>
> Is the ALPN "dq" or "doq"? 4.1 and 4.1.1 appear to disagree. 8.1 seems to
> disagree with itself.

Blame my poor editing skills, and use "doq". Sorry.

> Section 4.3 (idle timeouts): it's clearly better to use QUIC's facilities
> for this, but there could potentially be a conflict with DNS stateful
> timeouts (RFC48490) so maybe there needs to be a bit more discussion about
> how to resolve disagreements between two protocol layers.
>
> Section 5.4 (response size): there was a HUGE discussion about this in the
> context of DoH and the consensus was to retain the 65535 byte message
> size limit. DoQ should do the same.

OK.

> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/fpJSGWI1YtHeTFvmrS7pvB7ZnDA/
>
> The EDNS payload size limit only applies to Do53 UDP and should be ignored
> in other transports.
OK, will fix.
> Sections 5.7 and 4.3 seem to be restating the same things in different
> ways. They should probably be merged into one.
Will look.
>
> Section 5.7.1 (connection reuse): possibly also worth stating that servers
> should not send responses in order. Maybe refer to RFC7766 which has
> similar requirements for TCP.
Will do. This is indeed the intent.
> An editorial suggestion: when referring to RFCs, can you please make it
> clear what the reference is about (e.g. the subject of the RFC or name of
> protocol) in the paragraph containing the reference, so that readers
> can understand the paragraph without having to bounce back and forth to
> the references section.

I just need to find the right way to do that with the markdown tools...

-- Christian Huitema