On Tue, 23 May 2017 12:22:34 +0000 Sara Dickinson <s...@sinodun.com> wrote:
> I’ve reviewed this draft and as stated previously support adoption as > a companion document to RFC7766. Thank you for your review. > Section 2.2: I think the argument around DNSSEC can be bolstered by > the fact that recent root ZSK and upcoming KSK rollovers involved > large responses. Thank you, we can note that in a future revision. > Section 2: I think it might be useful to include a section in section > 2 describing the fact that the lack of, or very limited > implementation of TCP also fed the perception that it was a security > risk. The references Cheswick, W. and S. Bellovin book <https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/tcp.html#why> in section 2.4 I think may largely sums up the general concern. Maybe the section 2.4 is not correctly titled or incompletely detailed to highlight your point. Any specific text or additional references are welcome of course. > Section 6.3 s/[RFC7766] is might be/[RFC7766] might be/ Thank you. > Should there be a section in Section 6 about RFC7858 (DNS-over-TLS)? Yes, thanks for pointing that out. That section is still work in progress. > And since it is stated as TCP related development should RFC2136 be > there (even though it is discussed earlier)? Probably should be there. Need I worry about section 6's length at all? It could take up a significant portion of the document given the way this section is going. Note, this section was added based on some earlier feedback that having this sort of list might be helpful. > > How about including a reference to > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stenberg-httpbis-tcp/ ? Looks potentially worth including this sort of work in section 4. Thanks again, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
