-- 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 I hope it addresses your concerns. Yours, Daniel > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 8:39 AM Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker < > nore...@ietf.org> 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/ >> 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. >> >> 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. > > >> 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 >> homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >> > > > -- > Daniel Migault > Ericsson > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
