On 28/05/2024 22:12, Warren Kumari wrote:
Hi there, authors (and WG),
Thank you for this document, I found it clear, useful, and an easy read.
I do have a few comments/nits; addressing these now should help the IETF
LC and IESG evaluation go more smoothly.
Please SHOUT loudly once you've had a chance to address these, and I'll
start IETF LC.
LOUDLY!
Questions / issues / comments:
1: Can you please update the Abstract to clarify *how* the document
updates RFC1035?
I think that something like:
"This document updates RFC1035 by {clarifying|specifying} that the
QDCOUNT parameter of a DNS Query must not be greater than one." or
similar should work.
I've committed an update, albeit it it doesn't take the above verbatim
because it would've ended up -mostly- repeating the text that was
already there and in the title.
The abstract now reads:
This document updates RFC 1035 by constraining the allowed value of the
QDCOUNT parameter in DNS messages with OPCODE = 0 (QUERY) to a maximum
of one, and specifies the required behaviour when values that are not
allowed are encountered.
If that suffices I'll actually upload that to the datatracker.
I also took the opportunity to incorporate a trivial editorial nit
spotted by Tony Finch that was reported to us over the weekend.
cheers,
Ray
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
