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. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
