On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 1:13 PM Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 01:09:00PM -0700, Erik Kline via Datatracker wrote: > > Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-13: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ > > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > [abstract vs. S1/S3, question] > > > > * The abstract says: > > > > "...strongly > > encourages the operational practice of permitting DNS messages to be > > carried over TCP" > > > > while section 1 says: > > > > "...all DNS resolvers and recursive > > servers MUST support and service both TCP and UDP queries" > > > > and section 3 also some MUST text. > > > > Should the abstract be updated to say MUST rather than just > > "strongly encourages", or is there a subtly in here I'm missing? > > "require" might be better than "MUST", on the principle that if a given > requirement is stated in more than one place, there is risk of inadvertent > skew between what is actually stated; such skew can cause interoperability > failure or security vulnerabilities if different implementations use the > differing behaviors. > > -Ben > +1 sgtm
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
