Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] Intdir early partial review of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-06
Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Mon, 05 June 2023 19:20 UTC
Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7751C15107B; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 12:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oFpnOxYGcwk0; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 12:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa3.lax.icann.org (ppa3.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D3AFC151071; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 12:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.5]) by ppa3.lax.icann.org (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTPS id 355JKghT006347 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 5 Jun 2023 19:20:42 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.26; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 12:20:41 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.1118.026; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 12:20:41 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
CC: "int-dir@ietf.org" <int-dir@ietf.org>, "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] Intdir early partial review of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-06
Thread-Index: AQHZl91nSw4WLYCyHUKv0/nige/dUq99Cz4A
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2023 19:20:41 +0000
Message-ID: <C16237CD-29C7-4EA6-B6FE-341774C3AE3D@icann.org>
References: <168599051176.13074.6327351871474082979@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <168599051176.13074.6327351871474082979@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <AECECE16ED635E4D974C383B6B60EF2E@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.254,Aquarius:18.0.957,Hydra:6.0.573,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2023-06-05_31,2023-06-02_02,2023-05-22_02
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/g_TBgurgH33az2TSfYPbY-zPolQ>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] Intdir early partial review of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-06
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Addition of privacy to the DNS protocol <dns-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dns-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:dns-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2023 19:20:47 -0000
Thanks for the early review! On Jun 5, 2023, at 11:41 AM, Haoyu Song via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > The description in 4.6.2 is confusing. If the first condition causes Q to be > removed, then if R is successful, Q no longer exists. Then how can R be > further processed? The logic here should be better organized. Good catch! We don't need to discard R in order to ignore it. > > 4.6.3 “the timer should examine and possibly refresh its state” -> “the timer > should be examined, and its state are possibly refreshed” Good. > When mentioning a particular state or status, it’s better to put it in > quotation marks or capitalize it to avoid confusion. For example, early, sent, > unsent, success, … > > Pg.18 “For example, What if …” -> “For example, what if…” I think this is an artifact of you reading the text version instead of the HTML version. This is a known problem with the RFC series today. > > 4.6.11 “a encrypted” -> “an encrypted” Fixed, and in a few other places. --Paul Hoffman
- [dns-privacy] Intdir early partial review of draf… Haoyu Song via Datatracker
- Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] Intdir early partial revi… Paul Hoffman