At Fri, 25 Nov 2016 19:50:48 -0500, tjw ietf <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. Also, if someone feels > the document is *not* ready for publication, please speak out with your > reasons. > > *Also*, if you have any opinion on changing the document named from > 'refuse-any' to 'minimal-any', please speak out. I've read the 03 version of the document. I do *not* think this is ready for publication since I still believe we should not abuse HINFO for this purpose as I argued a year ago: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg16118.html (But other than that I think the document is quite well written). As for renaming the file, I don't have a strong opinion, but we expect a bigger issue like HINFO can lead to more revisions, it would be good to rename it at this opportunity in order to avoid confusion for future readers. Some specific comments on the text: - Section 3 1. A DNS responder can choose to select one or subset of RRSets at the QNAME. 'one or subset of RRSets' sounds a bit awkward to me, partly because 'a subset of RRSets' should include 'one of RRSets' and can thus be redundant, and partly because 'subset of RRSets" might sound related to 'subset of an RRSet' (it's actually "a subset of set of RRSets"). So I'd suggest changing this one of the following: - "one or a few of RRSets (but not all of them)" - "one or a few of RRSets" - "a subset of RRSets" I personally prefer the first most although it may be too verbose. - Section 4 A DNS responder which receives an ANY query MAY decline to provide a conventional response, or MAY instead send a response with a single RRSet in the answer section. "a single RRSet" doesn't seem to be fully consistent of "one or subset of RRSets" stated in the preceding section (see the previous bullet). - Section 4 If the DNS query includes DO=1 and the QNAME corresponds to a zone that is known by the responder to be signed, a valid RRSIG for the RRSets in the answer (or authority if answer is empty) section MUST be returned. Does this also apply to a synthesized HINFO (if so, by dynamically signing it?)? - Section 6 In the case where a zone that contains HINFO RRSets is served from an authority server that does not provide conventional ANY responses. This may be just because of my English literacy, but on my first read it was quite confusing to me; I first thought the second 'that' was a relative pronoun, which would make this text an incomplete sentence. If there was a comma after 'server' that would be more readable for me. - Section 7: a minor typo, s/implimentations/implementations/ not return all RRSIGS. In the wild there are implimentations that -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
