Thanks for the review! Notes below. Based on your review, we have issued draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-12. On Aug 26, 2023, at 6:49 AM, Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > ## Minor > > - Section 4.6.1, in the below text, does "persistence" play no role when you > say "regardless of how long in the past that was"? > ~~~~ > * E-status[X] is success, and (T0 - E-last-response[X]) < > persistence > > This indicates that one successful connection to a server that the > client then closed cleanly would result in the client not sending the > next query over Do53, regardless of how long in the past that was. > ~~~~ Good catch! We will remove that last clause. > > - Section 4.6.5, in the text "if Q is not present in any other *-queries[X] or > in Do53-queries[X]", does Do53-queries not part of *-queries? If this is not > true perhaps please explain early on what *-queries mean. (Note there are other > instances of this as well) Thanks for noticing this. *-queries was a bad name; we've changed it to any-E-queries. > > - Section 6.2, suggest to state clearly why modeling the probability is listed > under privacy consideration. This is not clear from the current text. Added. > > - Appendix A, any reason not to follow RFC 7942? Can-o-worms, already heavily discussed in the WG. > > - Appendix B, considering expanding this more on how would you judge this > experiment to be a success and perhaps move to standards track? Can-o-worms, already heavily discussed in the WG. > > ## Nits > > - Abstract, shouldnt "underlying transport" be "underlying encrypted transport"? Yes! > > - Section 1.2, add DoH Instead of adding it here, we will define it in the one paragraph where it is used. > > - For the quotes in Section 2.2 > - It is better to state the RFCs where these quotes originate. > - You could also use visual cues via blockquotes Done. > > - Section 3, you expand DoT and DoQ here but, they have already been used > without expansion in 2.2 Fixed. > > - Section 4, s/in failed resolutions or significant delay/in failed resolutions > or significant delays/ Fixed. Again, thanks! --Paul Hoffman -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
