On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:27 PM, Mirja Kühlewind <i...@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm wondering if it would make sense to provide stronger guidance that the > conventional ANY response SHOULD be provided if TCP is used as TCP already > provides a retrun routability proof...? Also maybe provide a refernce to > RFC7766? This has nothing to do with "retrun routability" if big answers are given to resolver via TCP then the resolver can be used as amplifier and there Millions of those on the net. IMHO the only time big ANY answer CAN be returned is when the connection is authenticated and approved. > And one smallish comment: Would it make sense to refer > draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-09 (or actually the soon to be new RFC) > instead of RFC7719? > > Hope this happens by RFC-editor or in AUth48 Olafur -- Ólafur Gudmundsson | Engineering Director www.cloudflare.com blog.cloudflare.com
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
