Hello Andreas, > I support adoption. Thanks!
> > 4.1: > > Avoiding Fragmentation: > > you mean "Avoiding IP fragmentation"? > > clearance is important, as the draft is also about "Namespace > Fragmentation" Good point. Fixed in the editor's copy (and also added 9715 instead of the draft there). > some words later: > Therefore, IP > fragmentation should be avoided by following guidance on > maximum > DNS payload sizes [I-D.ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation] and > providing TCP fall-back options [RFC7766]. > > ... > but is RFC7766 say "MUST" for TCP. The wording may be more precise on > this. (I regrouped this, as I guess these two belong together) This wording (BCP14 SHOULD vs. MUST as in RFC7766) follows wording from RFC3901, which also used SHOULD. I am very much open for MUST here, but there should probably be a couple more opinions on this. > this centence is covered by the initial > Specifically, this means that the > following minimal requirements SHOULD be implemented for a zone: I do not really follow this point; I read the section a couple of times now. Do you mean that there should also be a 'MUST' here (then see above), or that the sentence is redundant? If the latter, I would technically agree, but would also argue that text-flow/readability are still improved by its presence. With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M tob...@fiebig.nl _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
