Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Last Call for draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-05

[tirumal reddy <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 20:27, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> tirumal reddy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > Agreed. My suggestion is to update the text as follows:
>
>     > In TLS 1.3 with or without the use of ECH, middlebox cannot rely on
> SNI
>     > inspection because a malware could lie about the SNI and middlebox
> without
>     > acting as a TLS proxy does not have visibility into the server
>     > certificate.
>
> Inserted, at:
>
> https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations/commit/36538767d4e2ed935bd52ed0f2d19f7bac879bba
>
>     >> Is this still the right reference?  It seems that section 4 is still
>     >> correct.
>     >>
>
>     > No, you will have to refer to DDR
>     > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-add-ddr/) and DNR
>     > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-add-dnr/).
>     > The draft ietf-add-split-horizon-authority is specific to
> establishing
>     > local DNS authority in Split-Horizon Environments. I don't think it
> is
>     > relevant to this document.
>
> I have removed the second sentence/reference, and also the reference to
> peterson-doh-dhcp. I think that the existing DNR reference is enough.
>
>
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-07&url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-08&difftype=--html
>
> This is includes RFC9019 fix. Are there any other WGLC comments?
>

Updates look good to me.

Cheers,
-Tiru

>
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
>