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

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sara,

Updates sound good.  Thanks for checking.

Regards,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sara Dickinson <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 06 May 2021 12:58
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-
> tls-11: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 
> 
> > 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.