On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 2:56 AM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: 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-refuse-any/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I generally like this document, but I find it to be too wishy washy > because of > use of SHOULDs instead of MUSTs. I would have liked a bit more guidance > early > on about different choices or at least a statement that this is a rarely > used > feature and thus any choice is reasonably good. > > Alexey you have summarized correctly the translation from the earliest version of the document to something the WG could agree on. The choices are dictated by capabilities and implementation approaches, i.e. HINFO response can be used for all unsigned zones and DNSSEC signed zones if the server does online-signing, the "one RRset" response can be used for all zones but is hard for servers that fetch RRsets from DB. -- Ólafur Gudmundsson | Engineering Director www.cloudflare.com blog.cloudflare.com
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
