On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 18:16:27 +0900
Kazunori Fujiwara wrote:
> Thanks very much for your review.
>
> I submitted -20 now.
Looking at the diff[1] I find all of the issues addressed
(with the exception of the each/both nit contested by
Warren, which was a bad suggestion on my part; I suppose the
gra
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 08:59:26 -0700
Warren Kumari wrote:
>> due to the small amount of entropy provided by UDP port numbers and DNS
>> message identifiers, each of which being only 16 bits in size, and both
>> likely being in the first fragment of a packet if fragmentation occurs.
>>
>> s/each of w
Some minor (editorial) issues I noticed in the current (19) draft:
3.1
R4. If the UDP responder detects an immediate error indicating that
the UDP packet cannot be sent beyond the path MTU size, the UDP
responder may recreate response packets fit in the path MTU size, or
with the TC bi
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 20:54:52 -0500
Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Current versions of the draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis/
>
> The Current Intended Status of this document is: Best Current Practice
>
> Please review the draft and offer relevant comment
