Thank you for your comments.
Geoff,
> 1. RFC7766 ("All general-purpose DNS implementations MUST support both UDP
> and TCP transport." should also be
> noted at this point in the document, as avoiding fragmentation relies on a
> working TCP fallback
> 2. (minor) change "Guidelines for Authoritative DNS Configuration" to
> "Guidelines for Authoritative DNS Server Configuration"
Thank you.
3. "every iterative name server should be dual stack" - whats an
> "iterative name server"? Do you mean a recursive resolver?
So "iterative name server" should have been "iterative resolver" which is
in RFC8499 DNS Terminology.
In the current draft, when talking about name resolution we mostly talk
about iterative name resolution, which starts from the root to each
authoritative name server.
That is why we chose the word "iterative resolver".
Mike,
> There seems to be a mismatch between the document's intended status of
> Informational and the statement in the Abstract that it "documents Best
> Current Practice". I note that RFC 3901 in fact was a BCP.
>
Thank you. That intended status should be updated to BCP. (I thought I had
set it so but must have forgotten)
Momoka Y
On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 11:36 PM C. M. Heard <he...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> There seems to be a mismatch between the document's intended status of
> Informational and the statement in the Abstract that it "documents Best
> Current Practice". I note that RFC 3901 in fact was a BCP.
>
> Mike Heard
>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
