Subject: [dns-privacy] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 04:31:19 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-05: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure why this document is experimental. It does not appear to me that
it is important to use one common scheme everywhere and therefore just giving a
recommendation in an informational doc seems appropriate. I guess with more
experience the right next step would be to publish an BCP at some point.

The wording on MTU is rather weak in this document, given RFC7830 says:
"However, padded DNS messages MUST NOT exceed the number of
   octets specified in the Requestor's Payload Size field encoded in the
   RR Class Field (see Sections 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 of [RFC6891])."
Maybe be more explicit here.

Also the paragraph on MTU and fragmentation appears twice in this doc.