At Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:28:34 -0400, Dave Lawrence <t...@dd.org> wrote:
> > as you're at least suggesting some additional text (thanks for that, > > but that does not fully address my points), I'd offer mine: [...] > This seems basically fine with me, and I'll consult with the other > authors and the chairs. Okay, if something like this is acceptable, my high-level point will be basically addressed. > > This (and other links referenced in the message) will probably help: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg13428.html > > I didn't write the text you're referring to, but yes I believe it was > an attempt to address it, and I think it's sufficient because we're > really not getting into the details about how authorities come up with > answers, which is why this was kind of a hand-wavy, "you should be > aware of this issue and figure out some way to deal with it in your > own situation". > > > - a mixture of more/less specific prefixes can lead to > > interoperability problems > > This depends on how you define interoperability problems. The > protocol itself will work. I think making implementers of > authoritative ECS systems aware that the order in which the CIDRs are > filled matters is sufficient warning to have them figure out how to > manage the issue. Recursives, on the other hand, can't really do > anything other than cache what the authority tells them, no matter > what the draft says. For these I do not necessarily agree, but I can live with that if the introduction is revised to something we discussed above. > > > > Special awareness of ECS in devices that perform Network Address > > > > Translation (NAT) [...] > > > > > > I'm really not sure how to meaningfully change this. [...] > > > > I don't think I can offer any specific text [...] > > Anyway, if it's only me who are confused, I wouldn't be opposed to > > it if my question is just ignored. > > For the record, I'm explicitly not ignoring this, but I'm personally > still at a loss for what to do about it and am still inclined to leave > the NAT section as-is. I was probably not clear, I didn't intend to say you're ignoring this point. I tried to say I'm okay with the current text if others don't see a problem in understanding it. I don't know about others, but since neither you nor I can suggest something specific, and since this is quite minor, I'm fine with just forgetting the point. -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
