Subject: [dns-privacy] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 06:49:28 -0800

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-10: 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-dprive-dnsoquic/

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

§5.3.3 lists some protocol error scenarios that are considered fatal.

   If a peer encounters such an error condition it is considered a fatal
   error.  It SHOULD forcibly abort the connection using QUIC's
   CONNECTION_CLOSE mechanism, and SHOULD use the DoQ error code
   DOQ_PROTOCOL_ERROR.

When is it ok not to abort the connection?  Why is aborting the connection
recommended and not required if the errors are considered fatal?

---

From: Sara Dickinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:39:21 +0000

> On 9 Mar 2022, at 14:49, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Hi,

Many thanks for the comment (also made by others) - please see the update in version -11 which was just published, which we hope addresses your comment.

We’ve added the text:

"In some cases, it MAY
 instead silently abandon the connection, which uses fewer of the local resources
 but makes debugging at the offending node more difficult.”

Best regards

Sara.