Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-11

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the review! Notes below. Based on your review, we have issued draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-12.

On Aug 26, 2023, at 6:49 AM, Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> ## Minor
> 
> - Section 4.6.1, in the below text, does "persistence" play no role when you
> say "regardless of how long in the past that was"?
> ~~~~
>   *  E-status[X] is success, and (T0 - E-last-response[X]) <
>      persistence
> 
>   This indicates that one successful connection to a server that the
>   client then closed cleanly would result in the client not sending the
>   next query over Do53, regardless of how long in the past that was.
> ~~~~

Good catch! We will remove that last clause.

> 
> - Section 4.6.5, in the text "if Q is not present in any other *-queries[X] or
> in Do53-queries[X]", does Do53-queries not part of *-queries? If this is not
> true perhaps please explain early on what *-queries mean. (Note there are other
> instances of this as well)

Thanks for noticing this. *-queries was a bad name; we've changed it to any-E-queries.
> 
> - Section 6.2, suggest to state clearly why modeling the probability is listed
> under privacy consideration. This is not clear from the current text.

Added.

> 
> - Appendix A, any reason not to follow RFC 7942?

Can-o-worms, already heavily discussed in the WG.

> 
> - Appendix B, considering expanding this more on how would you judge this
> experiment to be a success and perhaps move to standards track?

Can-o-worms, already heavily discussed in the WG. 

> 
> ## Nits
> 
> - Abstract, shouldnt "underlying transport" be "underlying encrypted transport"?

Yes!

> 
> - Section 1.2, add DoH

Instead of adding it here, we will define it in the one paragraph where it is used.

> 
> - For the quotes in Section 2.2
>    - It is better to state the RFCs where these quotes originate.
>    - You could also use visual cues via blockquotes

Done.

> 
> - Section 3, you expand DoT and DoQ here but, they have already been used
> without expansion in 2.2

Fixed.

> 
> - Section 4, s/in failed resolutions or significant delay/in failed resolutions
> or significant delays/

Fixed. 

Again, thanks!

--Paul Hoffman