On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 6:03 AM, Ray Bellis <r...@isc.org> wrote:
> 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!
>
HEARD! :-)
> 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.
>
Excellent - once you post the new version I will start IETF LC. I should
notice the posting, but doesn't hurt to poke me too, just in case…
W
> cheers,
>
> Ray
>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
