On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 01:24:33PM -0700, IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org> wrote a message of 11 lines which said:
> The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state > Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski) > > The document is available at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-woodworth-bulk-rr/ I've read it and, while I'm not convinced it can be implemented properly (I would like to see running code), I think there is a clear demand for that and that the solution is reasonable. I therefore support its adoption. (Of course, as always, it does not mean I will support the result at the end.) I'm still hesitant with the NPN feature. I would like the draft to be modified to make clearer that it is non-mandatory to support BULK. For instance, setcion 3's "When an authoritative nameserver receives a query for which it does not have a matching name or a covering wildcard, it MUST then look for BULK RRs" should be replaced by "When a *BULK-aware* authoritative nameserver receives a query for which it does not have a matching name or a covering wildcard, …" Section 3.2.3 "longer values MUST be truncated to the width" Left-truncated or right-truncated? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
