On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org> wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2016, at 10:51, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the >> IETF. >> >> Title : Initializing a DNS Resolver with Priming Queries >> Authors : Peter Koch >> Matt Larson >> Paul Hoffman >> Filename : draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-07.txt >> Pages : 6 >> Date : 2016-03-19 >> > > > Thank you to the WG for the editorial changes in this draft. There are > still a few outstanding issues: > > The WG discussed the sentence: > The RD bit MAY be set to 0 or 1, although the meaning of it being set > to 1 is > undefined for priming queries. > However, there were widely-varying opinions and no consensus about change. > > With respect to the DO bit, there was a suggestion: > Resolvers SHOULD send DO, and should try validate (if it gets signed > responses). > This is pointless at the moment, but if / when we end up with signed > root-servers.net > (or foo.bar) it would be nice if the right things were already being > done. > There was some agreement on this, but then it was pointed out that the > response might be > larger than the typical size set in EDNS(0) requests. And then the > discussion got lost. > > It would be grand to resolve these (and any other issues folks have) on > the list before the Buenos Aires meeting so that the face-to-face > discussion is more valuable. > > --Paul Hoffman > > Minor question: "if the recursive resolver did not announce a reassembly size larger than 512 octets" Does that mean 513 is enough? I would prefer wording like "at least xxx" rather that "larger than xxx"
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
