Hi Joe, All good points. Made the changes to fix those as you can see at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-boucadair-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/boucadair/draft-boucadair-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns/master/draft-boucadair-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns.txt
FYI, “host loopback address” terminology was brought from rfc1122#section-3.2.1.3. Thank you. Cheers, Med De : OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org> De la part de Joe Clarke (jclarke) Envoyé : mercredi 14 septembre 2022 17:14 À : Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; opsawg@ietf.org Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 CALL FOR ADOPTION: RADIUS Extensions for Encrypted DNS Speaking as a contributor and an OPS DIR reviewer of the DNR work, I think this RADIUS extension has value. In reviewing the draft, I found some discrepancies in the TLV-Length fields. For example, Section 3.3.3 has a TLV-Length of “6” whereas 3.3.5 properly describes the length as “Six octets”. In general, “octets” should be included for all regardless of whether the number is numerical or written out. You reference RFC6890 when referring to disallowing “host loopbacks” for IPv6, but not when talking about IPv4. Though that document doesn’t use the term “host loopback” rather Loopback for v4 and Loopback Address for v6. Is it also worth citing the v4 (5771) and v6 (2375) multicast assignment RFCs? Joe From: OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 10:28 To: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> <opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>> Subject: [OPSAWG] 🔔 CALL FOR ADOPTION: RADIUS Extensions for Encrypted DNS Hello, WG. I like Henk’s subject icon. Makes for some attention-grabbing. This work has been discussed previously in opsawg, going back over a year. The authors have continued to progress the work and would like to gauge WG interest in adopting it. One might ask, why opsawg? The radext WG has been concluded, but, like IPFIX, there is interest in continuing to produce extensions for RADIUS. It was suggested by Benjamin Kaduk that opsawg was a potential fit for this work. Therefore, this kicks off a two-week CfA for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns/. Please comment on-list with support and/or discussion of the work. Thanks. Joe _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
