Subject: [dns-privacy] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 02:45:40 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: 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-bcp-op/

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

A couple of small comments/questions:

1) RFC2119/RFC8174 disclaimer is present in section 4, however, it does seem to
be the case that normative language is used. I would recommend to actually use
normative language in this doc!

2) Can you actually provide references for the techniques listed in Table 1?

3) Sec 5.1.3.1:
“A DNS-over-TLS privacy service on both port 853 and 443.  This
      practice may not be possible if e.g. the operator deploys DoH on
      the same IP address.”
Isn’t 443 basically DoH? Why would you deploy DoT over 853? Is that a common
practice? Sorry if I miss something...

4) As a side node to the AD and shepherd: Answer to question 7 in shepherd
write-up is “(7) No IPR Disclosures” which does not really answer the question
if all author have confirmed that they are not aware of any additional IPR they
would need to disclose…