Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-09: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I find myself curious about both SHOULDs in Resolver software SHOULD treat the response to the priming query as a normal DNS response, just as it would use any other data fed to its cache. Resolver software SHOULD NOT expect exactly 13 NS RRs. Do you think these SHOULDs (especially the first one) are required for interoperation? I'm wondering (1) why they aren't MUSTs, and (2) why RFC 2119 language is actually needed at all. If they are RFC 2119 SHOULDs, what happens if the resolver software violates them? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
