Thanks, Paul. If it’s okay for implementations, and it doesn’t cause issues, I’m good.
Joe From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 25, 2024 at 20:40 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> Cc: ops-...@ietf.org <ops-...@ietf.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis....@ietf.org <draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis....@ietf.org>, last-c...@ietf.org <last-c...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis-05 Thanks for following up. I've removed text about places were we are already fixing the text. On Jul 25, 2024, at 12:39, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > First, in Section 3 why not just say that RD bit MUST NOT be set? Why > > leave it > > to a MAY when setting the bit is undefined? Seems like the more > > prescriptive > > you are the better. > > Some systems might set RD to 1 for all queries, such as due to lazy > programming. Setting it to 1 does no harm to anyone. > [JMC] Been there. Would it make sense, then, to say, “server MUST ignore > RD”? No, and for similar reasons. Some authoritative server software might pay attention to it, and there is no downside for it doing so. --Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
