Ballot for draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns
Yes
No Objection
No Record
Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
This document targets deployments where a trusted relationship is in place between
the RADIUS client and server with communication optionally secured by IPsec or
Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC6614].
I don't understand what this sentence is trying to say.
Does table 7 really clarify the sentences used earlier that say exactly the same thing but more compact?
Why "Expert Review" and not "Specification Required" or "RFC Required" ?
Registration requests are to be sent to radius-dhcp-review@ietf.org
I thought we didn't put these emails in the documents anymore? But I guess IANA will get back to you on that.
NITS:
As a reminder,
I would remove this part of the text.
Thanks for addressing my previous DISCUSS[1], I sincerely think that the document is better now. Regards -éric [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/yV4NKUp6tcmFGTkXomh7s1vmwhY/
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-10 CC @ekline ## Nits ### S1 * "such as policy" -> "such a policy"
Firstly, thank you to the authors for the document. Also much thanks to Ralf Weber for reviewing and updating his DNSDIR review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-10-dnsdir-telechat-weber-2023-03-12/), and the authors for addressing the nits. Like Eric I wonder what should happen with a RADIUS client receiving a non-permitted DHCP option - but perhaps this is already well known and understood?