I forgot to mention willingness to contribute text.
Here is one suggestion:
Add to section 3 (or under 3.1) text to the effect of:
The recursive resolver SHOULD ensure that the reassembly size advertised is
below the threshold in its immediate network vicinity.
Specifically, if a response with th
On Wed, 31 May 2023, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-klh-dnsop-rfc8109bis
>
> This call for adoption ends: 7 June 2023
>
I too am in favour of adoption.
>
>
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.o
On Wed, 31 May 2023, Tim Wicinski wrote:
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-klh-dnsop-rfc8109bis
This call for adoption ends: 7 June 2023
In favour of adoption.
Paul
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/l
All
A reminder that there is an open call for
adoption on draft-klh-dnsop-rfc8109bis.
While this document may not be relevant to most operators, there are some
that do
find this useful, and we wish to hear from them.
This call for adoption ends: 7 June 2023
tim
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 10:01 A
Reviewer: Timothy Winters
Review result: Ready
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
like they would treat c
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 10:01:49AM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> All
>
> The authors for RFC8109 have made some updates to their document
> "Initializing a DNS Resolver with Priming Queries", and are looking to have
> the
> work adopted by DNSOP.
>
> You can see the changes made since RFC8109 her
Hi dsnop,
we'd like to turn your attention again to our draft
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-peltan-edns-presentation-format-01.html
We believe this document shall fill a missing gap in specifications, and
help interoperability of DNS tools. Therefore, we think it'd make sense
if this
