Thanks all, done! W
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 5:01 AM, Joe Abley <jab...@strandkip.nl> wrote: > Hi Warren, > > On 15 Jan 2024, at 22:49, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > > Seeing as the document says you should "expect: flag: aa to be present", > it does seem like it would be better if it also said: "expect: flag: do to > be present if an RRSIG is in the response", as that is more inline with > what someone writing a test would see. > > If someone checks for "flag: aa" literally in output they will be > disappointed, given the output in your example. > > Similarly, if someone checks for "flag: do" literally in output they will > suffer a different kind of disappointment, since the dig output uses > "flags" plural. > > However, I think it would actually be better to detach the language more > clearly from the output of a particular version of a particular tool (not > just in this document, but in all documents). It's not like dig is the only > game in town, and it's not like the output of dig is invariant between > releases. > > This seems like a fairly simple clarification / place where things could > have been worded better, but I don't think that it rises to the level of a > "Verified" errata, but it's also not wrong, so my proposed resolution is: > > Accept the errata as Editorial, Hold for Document Update. > > That seems reasonable to me. > > Joe >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
