On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 3:09 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-03: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/ > handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle > DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Section 3, paragraph 1 > > A brief summary of the guidance provided in the existing DNS specification > for the use of QDCOUNT can be found in Appendix A. While the specification > is clear in many cases, in the specific case of OPCODE = 0 (QUERY) there is > some ambiguity which this document aims to eliminate. > > By "existing DNS specification" do you mean RFC1035? Please state so. > Looking at Appendix A, I see: [RFC1035] [RFC1996] [RFC2136] [RFC3425] [RFC5936] [RFC7873] [RFC8490] So this is not just RFC1035. I *guess* this could be "DNS specifications" instead of "DNS specification".... W
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
