Re: [DNSOP] A draft about the Name:Wreck problem draft-dashevskyi-dnsrr-antipatterns

[Ray Bellis]

On 16/04/2021 09:18, Ray Bellis wrote:

> Yes, that was pretty much it.
> 
> Many DNS proxies / ALGs don't inspect the packet contents at all, so a
> stronger generic requirement was not feasible.

FWIW, I have formally requested that the authors withdraw the statement
in the paper's conclusion that infers that RFC 5625 is "too complex,
ambiguous or outdated".

They have utterly failed to comprehend that the scope and context of RFC
5625 was DNS Proxy / ALGs in home gateways and that it is not
appropriate to criticize it for not making normative requirements of
*every* DNS stack.  They simply were not in scope.

Ray

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop