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

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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/ 
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/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for working on this document. I am supporting Lars's discuss to clarify
the implication of a non standard port usage.

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.