Re: [Doh] New version: draft-ietf-doh-resolver-associated-doh-03.txt

Couple of small things:

typo, Intro: "Users typically configure their DNS recursive resolvers with
through automatic configuration"

I don't get the "Do53" abbreviation, but I'll grab you and maybe you can
help me make sense of it (a very small thing considering you could have
said DoPotatoes or whatever).

Are there any outcomes you can see where IANA is compelled to delegate the
SUDNs here? Or where an authoritarian government might require resolvers to
collide, if that makes sense?

In privacy considerations the draft says, "can increase communication
privacy because of the TLS protection." I'm wondering if it makes sense to
say explicitly "confidentiality and integrity" in a parenthetical near
privacy?

Thanks for this work, feel free to respond on-list if helpful!

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 09:20 Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:

> The diffs here are what I think have general agreement from the discussion
> about this draft so far, but I may have missed things. Comments are still
> quite welcome.
>
> As for the late discussion of using the URI RRtype instead of TXT, I would
> not know what to put in the "priority" and "weight" values. That alone
> seems enough reason to leave this as a TXT record, but others might
> disagree. It's not a lot of effort to change the text to the URI RRtype,
> but I don't want to do so unless it is actually better than TXT.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> Doh mailing list
> Doh@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
>
-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: joe@cdt.org, p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871