On 21 Jan 2020, at 01:23, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > As I already indicated several times, I think this is needed and agree with this document. In fact, I've included a reference to this document in RFC8683. Thanks for your support. > Just a minor point regarding the abstract. I think it should be a single paragraph, and moving most of the text to the intro (I've been told this a couple of time with my own documents). Fair suggestion. I’ll do this if no one else disagrees. Feel free to send me suggested text if you like. > In Section 4.1, I think could also include a reference to DNS privacy/encryption. In RFC8683 I'm calling all this "foreign DNS" (see section 4.4). Can you send the specific text you’re suggesting? > Relevant to this document see also section 4.1.1 in RFC8683 and the IANA Consideration section that I had in the version before the RFC8683: > > 8. IANA Considerations > > This document does not have any new specific IANA considerations. > > Note: This section is assuming that https://www.rfc- > editor.org/errata/eid5152 is resolved, otherwise, this section may > include the required text to resolve the issue. > > Alternatively, this could be fixed also by > [I-D.cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa]. > > So, may be is time to also clear the errata, indicating that it is fixed by this document? I agree. Do others agree that this new document addresses the RFC 7050 erratum listed below? <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5152> If so, we should request the RFC Errata to mark this erratum as resolved by this new document. Stuart Cheshire -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
