Hi,
I have read the draft and have two comments. Both of these have been
called out before, but I don't see them addressed in this version (-03):
1. In case of a DNS responder selecting one or a subset of the RRsets at
the QNAME, The draft does not give clear guidance on which RRset(s) to
pick. In previous discussions there was yes nodding to provide text that
the RRset picking should be determinative, even perhaps providing
guidance on the selection method to use. Such text has not made it to
the draft yet. I am not sure if adding a single line "the RRset
selection method SHOULD be determinative" is sufficient, or if more text
is wanted.
2. People expressed that they would like to see ANY over TCP stick to
the original (undefined) behavior, that is to return all RRsets at the
QNAME. Joe replied that this is still possible with this document
because the mechanism is "a big giant MAY", but still I think it makes
sense to call out explicitly that the behavior MAY differ depending on
the transport protocol.
One more nit comment, I would like to see explicitly called out in
section 7 that "DNS implementations are free to not return all RRSIGS
*in case QTYPE=RRSIG*".
And I prefer `minimal-any` over `refuse-any`, agreeing with the logic
Ondrej provided.
Best regards,
Matthijs
On 26-11-16 01:50, tjw ietf wrote:
All
The authors have addressed all the outstanding issues with this draft,
and the chairs feel this is ready for Working Group Last Call.
There has been one issue raised which we feel the working group may have
some opinion on this.
Ondrej Sury raised this point:
There's a small procedural thing - the last name of the draft
appears on both datatracker.i.o and tools.i.o. I believe it
would be better to reupload the draft with name changed to
draft-ietf-dnsop-minimal-any
to prevent the people who might thing the name of the draft
bears any significance. As this requires almost no effort
I think it would be better to this now than fend of the
questions "why is this refuse-any while it doesn't refuse
ANY" later.
The authors and the Chairs support this in principle, but the working
group should comment on this during the WGLC process.
---------
This starts a Working Group Last Call for
draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any
Current versions of the draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any/
Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. Also, if someone
feels the document is *not* ready for publication, please speak out with
your reasons.
*Also*, if you have any opinion on changing the document named from
'refuse-any' to 'minimal-any', please speak out.
This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on 10
December, 2016
thanks
tim
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
