Subject: [dns-privacy] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-dprive-dns-over-tls-08: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 05:16:56 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dprive-dns-over-tls-08: 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-dprive-dns-over-tls/

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

-- Section 3.1 --

   A DNS server that supports DNS-over-TLS MUST listen for and accept
   TCP connections on port 853.  By mutual agreement with its clients,
   the server MAY, instead, use a port other than 853 for DNS-over-TLS.

Is it really "instead" (in which case the previous sentence isn't
unqualified "MUST"), or is it "in addition?  That is, which of these is
correct?:

NEW-1
   A DNS server that supports DNS-over-TLS MUST listen for and accept
   TCP connections on port 853.  By mutual agreement with its clients,
   the server MAY, in addition, use a port other than 853 for
   DNS-over-TLS.
END

NEW-2
   A DNS server that supports DNS-over-TLS MUST listen for and accept
   TCP connections on port 853, unless it has mutual agreement with
   its clients to use a port other than 853 for DNS-over-TLS.
END

(And similarly for the client side in the following paragraph.)