Thanks, Paul. If it’s okay for implementations, and it doesn’t cause issues,
I’m good.
Joe
From: Paul Hoffman
Date: Thursday, July 25, 2024 at 20:40
To: Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Cc: ops-...@ietf.org , dnsop ,
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis@ietf.org
, last-c...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ext] Ops
Thanks for following up. I've removed text about places were we are already
fixing the text.
On Jul 25, 2024, at 12:39, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
>
> > First, in Section 3 why not just say that RD bit MUST NOT be set? Why
> > leave it
> > to a MAY when setting the bit is undefined? Seems l
> First, in Section 3 why not just say that RD bit MUST NOT be set? Why leave
> it
> to a MAY when setting the bit is undefined? Seems like the more prescriptive
> you are the better.
Some systems might set RD to 1 for all queries, such as due to lazy
programming. Setting it to 1 does no harm
Thanks for the review! Comments below.
On Jul 24, 2024, at 18:21, Joe Clarke via Datatracker wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Joe Clarke
> Review result: Has Issues
>
> I have been asked to review this draft on behalf of the OPS Directorate. This
> draft describes to initialize a recursive DNS resolver wh
