> On 22 Oct 2024, at 4:10 AM, Tommy Jensen > <Jensen.Thomas=40microsoft....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > I'm happy to see 3901 being updated and this draft getting updated from list > discussion. Having read through the previous list discussion, I don't have > additional feedback of substance other than "this is worth working on and I > would support adoption if a CfA occurred". > > Minor suggested edits: (1) through Section 4.1, "MUST not" should probably be > "MUST NOT" and (2) "legacy IP" and "IPv4" should be standardized (only use > one of them) unless there's some context-appropriate reason for these to be > used I do not understand. >
it seems odd to me to recommend that auth DNS servers should take steps to avoid fragmentation of responses (sec 4.1) while no such recommendation exists for recursive resolvers (sec 4.2). To avoid the issues with fragmentation and IPv6 the measures proposed in draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation should apply to recursive resolvers as well as auth servers. It would also be informative for the draft to include some analysis of recursive resolver behaviour on UDP timeout in a dual stack scenario. Should a recursive resolver retry the query using the other protocol (and take another <timeout> interval if the server is non-responsiver?) Or should the recursive resolver simply move on to the next authoritative server for the name being queries? A similar question exists for TCP connection attempt timeouts. Geoff
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
