Subject: [DNSOP] Erik Kline's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 00:10:49 -0800

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-04: Yes

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-dnsop-server-cookies/

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

[ questions ]]

[ section 3 ]

* I assume it's not a big deal that sometimes the client cannot easily
  tell when its upstream IP address has changed (vis. RFC 7873 S6
  considerations)?

  NAT makes it difficult to comply with the MUST for clients stated
  in section 8, but...what should a client do if only has, say, an
  RFC 1918 address and is quite likely to be behind a NAT?  If its
  server is also a likely-NAT'd IP then it might presume no NAT between
  the two, but if the server has a global IP address...I suppose it
  can just rotate the per-server cookies once per year?

[[ nits ]]

[ section 1 ]

* Final sentence of the final paragraph:
  "in a Client protecting fashion" ->
  "in a privacy protecting fashion"? (to match the abstract)

[ section 8 ]

* "five minute" -> "five minutes"