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

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for addressing my comments. I have checked -11 version and it looks good to me for my comments.

//Zahed

> On 22 Mar 2022, at 10:38, Sara Dickinson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 9 Mar 2022, at 11:35, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Zaheduzzaman Sarker 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:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Thanks a lot for working on this specification. Thanks to Brian Trammell  for
>> the TSVART review.
> 
> Many thanks for the comments - please see the updates in version -11 which was just published, which we hope address your comments.
> 
>> 
>> I have following comments and I think addressing them will improve this
>> documentation-
>> 
>>  * Section 5.3.3 - should also list the protocol error case related to 
>>  session resumption and 0-RTT, and put a reference to section 5.5 for further
>>  details.
> 
> We’ve added a bullet point:
> “   *  receiving a "replayable" transaction in O-RTT data (for servers
>         not willing to handle this case - see section Section 5.5)”
> 
>> 
>>  * Section 5.2 says -
>> 
>>    "Implementations MAY impose a limit on the number of such dangling
>>    streams. If limits are encountered, implementations MAY close the
>>    connection."
>> 
>>    However, I have  not notices any indication  of how this limits can be
>>    set. I would be great if we can say how the implementer can enforce the
>>    normative "MAY".
> 
> We’ve updated the text in section 5.2 based on other comments we have to more clearly specify when streams are ’dangling' so please review.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Sara.