| Tim,
I think I’ve just did that in the previous email. I feel that gathering information about more implementations first would be better, so the section on Implementation could be uniform for all gathered input. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)
My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. On 24. 1. 2023, at 15:47, Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
The chairs thank all for this feedback, even at this stage. But it's better to catch these issues now, than later on in the process.
I am indifferent about what label we stick on this, but perhaps the document should have a section on implementations?
However, I do feel that the Security Considerations is missing on the risks of dropping packets, ICMP filtering and dangers of PMTUD.
Also it feels weird to me that the IP_PMTUDISC_OMIT is used by: BIND 9, NSD, Unbound, Knot DNS and PowerDNS, but neither the fact nor the reasoning behind the option is ever mentioned here.
Hence, I think the Implementors section should be added to the document.
an Implementation Section would be useful and generally they appear as an Appendix.
Ondrej, if you could suggest some text with what ISC will implement, along with any reasoning, that would be a great start.
tim
|
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
