Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis-06: 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-rfc8109bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Abstract", paragraph 2 > This document, when published, obsoletes RFC 8109. See Section 1.1 > for the list of changes from RFC 8109. I do not think any references are allowed in the Abstract. Please convert the reference to straight text. Section 1, paragraph 0 > Recursive DNS resolvers need a starting point to resolve queries. > [RFC1034] describes a common scenario for recursive resolvers: they > begin with an empty cache and some configuration for finding the > names and addresses of the DNS root servers. [RFC1034] describes > that configuration as a list of servers that will give authoritative > answers to queries about the root. This has become a common > implementation choice for recursive resolvers, and is the topic of > this document. I am not a DNS expert, and was wondering if there is a definition for "recursive resolvers", and if not, can it be defined here? The idea would be to understand how they are different from other kinds of resolvers such as "Designated Resolvers". At the same time, the term "recursive name server" seems to be used interchangeably with "recursive resolver". Are they the same? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
