Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-12

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the review!

On Sep 7, 2023, at 3:49 PM, Tommy Pauly via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Tommy Pauly
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
> draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing. These comments were written primarily for
> the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s)
> should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other
> IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that
> have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/__;!!PtGJab4!4iLY4CWNWu6jI6uPwY9s6SVNFub8COCEk2E3QqLGvwi22RztZ1ttsbFRlcFmC02uvF3D6rUSk3aev2LDnYem1JJF$ [datatracker[.]ietf[.]org]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/__;!!PtGJab4!4iLY4CWNWu6jI6uPwY9s6SVNFub8COCEk2E3QqLGvwi22RztZ1ttsbFRlcFmC02uvF3D6rUSk3aev2LDnYem1JJF$ [datatracker[.]ietf[.]org]>."
> 
> Thanks for a well-written and valuable document. The privacy benefits of this
> opportunistic approach represent an important step. I have a few comments/nits,
> but none are major.
> 
> Comments:
> - In Section 3.1, “Pooled Authoritative Servers Behind a Single IP Address”, is
> it truly always a single IP address? I would assume that there could be a
> load-balancer that has both an IPv4 and an IPv6 address that forwards to a
> pool. Would it be more accurate to call this “…Behind a Load Balancer”?
> 

Good catch, yes.

> Nits:
> 
> - It would be nice to add some text in the body of Section 2 (before Section
> 2.1) to explain what is meant by “priorities”, rather than having a bare
> section heading. For example, “The protocol described in this document is based
> on prioritizing the following features.” - In Section 2.2, should future
> protocols other than DoT/DoQ be mentioned as being appropriate for this
> mechanism (or not)? - It would be nice if the examples in Section 4.5 that
> don’t list both IPv4 and IPv6 example addresses chose IPv6 as the primary
> example.
> 

Yeah, that section got sidetracked. Can fix.

--Paul Hoffman