On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 03:50:43PM -0800, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > * I agree with Mirja, Section 8 is more informative than what is alluded to > the > paragraph starting with “Several recursive resolvers …” in Section 3, and IMO > is worth keeping. I struck me as odd to call out the operation practice of a > particular vendor (Akamai). We might want to check if this reference is ok – > Ben?
To some extent the operational practices of operators equate to implementation status, for those that develop/run their own implementations. So I wasn't particularly struck by the text in Section 8 -- I was more struck by the text in Section 3 that left the "some way" rather vague, and had opened an internal discussion about it (as-yet unresolved). But Adam's proposal to drop the vendor name entirely is likely to be satisfactory. -Ben _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
