On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 03:11:26AM -0400, tjw ietf <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote a message of 69 lines which said:
> This begins a Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any. The Document is > located here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any/ IMHO, the document is both useful, and ready to move forward. My personal nits, only editorial: > "ANY Query" refers to a DNS meta-query meta-query is not defined in this document, in RFC 1034, 1035 or 7719. Opinion: just "query". > Below are the three different modes of behaviour by DNS responders > for names that exists that are used, listed in the order of > preference Is it obvious for everyone that it is the decreasing order (most preferred first)? > Implementers SHOULD provide an option for operators to specify > behavior over TCP. If this is because, with TCP, you have some certainty about the client address, and therefore do not risk reflection attacks, then I suggest to replace TCP by "transports that provide some guarantee about the authenticity of the source IP address, such as TCP or DNS cookies". _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
