Re: [dns-privacy] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with COMMENT)

[Sara Dickinson <[e-mail]>]

> On 6 May 2021, at 10:16, Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you for this document.
> 
> I was surprised by the length of this document - i.e., 40 pages to say to use
> TLS rather than TCP, and noting that DoH is only 20 pages long!
> 
> But in reality, this document seems to be more than just zone transfers over
> TLS and seems to clarify/optimize various behavior related to using TCP
> connection handling.

Indeed - it started out at about half this length and then grew, particularly with the updates to the earlier specifications were added!

> 
> I have a few concrete suggestions that you are at liberty to handle as you see
> fit:
> 
> (1) Please ensure that the abstract accurately summarizes the focus on the
> document, with a sentence of two summarizing the updates to RFC1995, RFC5936
> and RFC7766.

Picked up in other reviews - I have suggested: 

“Additionally, this specification updates RFC1995 and RFC5936 with respect to efficient use of TCP connections, and RFC7766 with respect to the recommended number of connections between a client and server for each transport."

> 
> (2) I presume that section 21.3 is intended to be deleted (since the references
> appear to only be from section 16 which is planned to be removed), if so adding
> a RFC editor note would be helpful.

Correct - will add text. 

> 
> (3) It wasn't clear to me whether the text in the appendix is meant to be
> normative or illustrative.   It might be helpful to be clear which it is meant
> to be.

A good point - it is meant to be illustrative - I’ll add text to clarify. 

Many thanks!

Sara.