Re: [homenet] Dnsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-21

Hi,

Thanks for the review. So the reason we do not consider DOH is that DoH
8484 has been defined for communications between a client and a resolver
while in our case TLS is used between two authoritative servers.

  This document focuses on communication between DNS
   clients (such as operating system stub resolvers) and recursive
   resolvers.

I see your point regarding the standard. What we wanted to say is that the
standard port is defined by a standard. The standard might be the standard
defining the transport protocol - which is the case for DoT, or eventually
by the DHCP option. The reason I do not like "standard action" is that in
our case DoT there is no action to be taken - the standard is already
there. On the other hand I did not like the current proposal either, so I
changed to "a standard" and hope this addresses your concerns. Thanks for
raising this.

OLD:
It is worth noticing that the Supported Transport field does not enable to
specify a port and the used port is defined by standard.

NEW:
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.

Yours,
Daniel

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 5:43 AM R. Gieben via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
wrote:

> Reviewer: R. Gieben
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> A straight forward document specifying dhcpv6 options, had little trouble
> reading it. Got a bit lost with acronyms though, i.e. forgetting what ORO
> is
> when nearing the end of the document.
>
> Any reason why DNS over HTTP (DoH, RFC 8484) isn't standardized in the same
> document?
>
> A Nit (maybe): in section 4.2: "... defined by standard." -> "... defined
> by
> standard action" ?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson