Subject: [dns-privacy] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-dnsodtls-13: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 05:14:31 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dprive-dnsodtls-13: 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-dnsodtls/

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

Regarding the shepherd write-up: There is no requirement for an
implementation section. There is a recommendation to have one, to track
implementations efforts during the draft's live-time, but such a section
is usually removed on publication as RFC as this information easily
out-dates. There is another recommendation to have a section explaining
the goals and/or next steps after the end of a (successful) experiment. I
personally don't think this is required here, given that I understand the
experiment is to figure out if this will be adopted (given there is
stable reference).

One small question on the text in the draft:
"For the client, state should be destroyed when
   disconnecting from the network (e.g., associated IP interface is
   brought down). "
Does this mean all state including state used for session resumption?

---

From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 05:37:08 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mirja Kuehlewind [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 6:45 PM
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>;
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-dnsodtls-13:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> 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.)
> 
> 
> implementations efforts during the draft's live-time, but such a section is
> usually removed on publication as RFC as this information easily out-dates.
> There is another recommendation to have a section explaining the goals
> and/or next steps after the end of a (successful) experiment. I personally don't
> think this is required here, given that I understand the experiment is to figure
> out if this will be adopted (given there is stable reference).
> 

No, if all state is removed then session resumption will not be possible. 
To avoid confusion, I will remove the above line.

-Tiru