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

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now THAT is a well done shepherd writeup.

Thanks for this work, which was an interesting read.  It's great to see this so
quickly on the heels of QUIC itself.

Just a couple of BCP 14 things to point out.  In Section 5.4, we have this:

   Clients SHOULD monitor the idle time incurred on their connection to
   the server, defined by the time spent since the last packet from the
   server has been received.  When a client prepares to send a new DNS
   query to the server, it will check whether the idle time is
   sufficiently lower than the idle timer.  If it is, the client will
   send the DNS query over the existing connection.  If not, the client
   will establish a new connection and send the query over that
   connection.

There's a blanket SHOULD, followed by two "will"s.  I read those as normative
requirements, even though they don't use BCP 14 language.  But that means they
conflict with the SHOULD.  IMHO, this needs to be resolved.

In Section 5.5:

   Clients SHOULD consider potential privacy issues associated with
   session resumption before deciding to use this mechanism.  [...]

I find "SHOULD consider" to be far too vague for this to be meaningful.  If
I've thought about it, have I met my burden here?

Thank you for including Section 7.

And now, some nits.

Abstract:

* "... similar properties to that provided by ..." -- s/that/those/

Section 1:

* "DNS over QUIC is referred here as ..." -- s/referred/referenced/ or
s/referred/referred to/

Section 5.2:

* The second-last paragraph is missing a closing parenthesis.