On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 10:01 PM Paul Wouters via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-06: Yes
>
Thanks for your review, Paul.
> Just a few comments:
>
> Since NODATA responses are generated for non-existent names
>
> Should this not also say "not covered by a wildcard" ? I guess it depends
> on
> whether you consider "non-existent names" to mean "not covered by a
> wildcard".
> I think it wouldn't hurt to make this explicit in the text.
>
That's kind of a subtle point that I was probably avoiding getting into in
the
introductory part of the document, but ok, I will reword and make that
distinction
explicit.
proves the delegation is unsigned by the absense of the DS bit.
>
> The absence is of the DS RRtype, signified by a bit in the Type Bitmaps
> field.
> This brings the writing more in line with earlier mentions of the Type
> Bitmaps
> content. (also absense -> absence ?)
>
Ok, and ok.
Last, the Appendix A and B look very similar to what we normally call
> Implementation Status (RFC 7942). Those sections are usually removed from
> the
> document before publication (to avoid them being used sort of as
> advertisement,
> and for quickly becoming outdated). I'm a bit on the fence here on whether
> it
> would align more with RFC 7942 to remove these from the final document.
>
Another reviewer brought this up too, and I explained my reasoning in the
earlier
response. To regurgitate:
"Our motivation for including this section is to document what precursor
methods were actually deployed in the field. This is useful as a reference
for anyone looking at past DNS query/response data or code in understanding
what was going on."
Happy to discuss more and come to a consensus.
Shumon.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
