There is an -04 version which missed the cut off but will be the one we
submit:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DNSOP/draft-5966-bis/master/draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-04.txt
https://github.com/DNSOP/draft-5966-bis/pull/24/files#diff-1
I believe Sara addresses all concerns.
tim
On 10/27/15 5:18 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
Stephane and all,
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:19:55 +0100
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 03:39:33AM -0400,
Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote
a message of 36 lines which said:
The WGLC ended on this, and there was strong consensus to move this
document forward.
Can you clarify what was the resolution for the problem of matching
replies to questions? I believe that most people (like me) are happy
with the ID+QNAME+QCLASS+transport_tuple of
<http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/YCkm0bc3c0XjnU71kyGU8V8SGZg>
but it seems we may have at least a dissent
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/egQ4zEMacf_JmohgNNguOBXjVJA>
Sara's proposal does seem to take into account Mark's concern, since
she specified using the QNAME/QCLASS/QTYPE only if they are present in
the reply.
I guess Mark's argument might be that since we have to take into
account the ID-only case, why not add extra code complexity to deal
with ID+QNAME+QCLASS+QTYPE matching?
I have no strong feelings either way on this, so (like Stephane) I am
happy with the proposed matching.
Cheers,
--
Shane
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
