Re: [homenet] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-22: (with COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

> On 20 Oct 2022, at 15:47, Daniel Migault <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> -- I clicked send to early. 
> Hi Zahed, 
> 
> Thanks for the review. Please find my response inline as well as the updated text below:
>  https://github.com/ietf-homenet-wg/front-end-naming-delegation-dhc-options/commit/c29b4ca2b6e2af4de82ba20a975f3540fc93c458 <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-5f6c20e934f2ca0b&q=1&e=92ddb335-b817-49fd-9afc-6a7f2862d9c8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fietf-homenet-wg%2Ffront-end-naming-delegation-dhc-options%2Fcommit%2Fc29b4ca2b6e2af4de82ba20a975f3540fc93c458>
> 
> I hope it addresses your concerns.
> 
> Yours, 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 8:39 AM Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-22: 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/ <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-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options/>
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for working on this document. I am supporting Lars's discuss to clarify
> the implication of a non standard port usage.
> 
> We only chose to use the standard port. The reason we mentioned this is that when other transport modes will be used, a standard port will be defined. Either in the document defining the transport or in a document specifying the code point for the Supported Transport.  

What you wrote here is much clear than what is written in the document. But then I would like to see normative language to use only the standard port and not allow other ports that RFC7858 allows to use.

>  
> I also think this paragraph
> 
>    It is worth noticing that the Supported Transport field does not enable to
>    specify a port and the used port is defined by a standard. In the case of
>    DNS over TLS [RFC7858], the port is defined by [RFC7858] to be 853. The need
>    for such flexibility has been balanced with the difficulty of handling a
>    list of tuples ( transport, port ) as well as the possibility to use a
>    dedicated IP address for the DM.
> 
> should be moved to section 4.4 if this consideration is also true for section
> 4.3.
> 
> correct. I just copied the lines.  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Migault
> Ericsson
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Migault
> Ericsson