Thank you for the review, Roman. Roman Danyliw via Datatracker writes: > * I agree with Mirja, Section 8 is more informative than what is > alluded to the paragraph starting with “Several recursive resolvers > …” in Section 3, and IMO is worth keeping.
I've already updated the GitHub copy in response to Mirja's review to drop the request for the RFC Editor to remove the section. > I struck me as odd to call out the operation practice of a > particular vendor (Akamai). We might want to check if this > reference is ok – Ben? I had also removed this reference from Section 3. It was important background material when I first introduced the draft, before the technique became more widely available, but I agree that Akamai specifically need ongoing highlighting there. > * A few reference nits: > - Section 6. Per the mention to DNS-OARC, please provide a citation. This was my own personal research on DITL data, not published as a special report. How should I cite? > - Section 6 and 9. The text references “during discussions in the > IETF”. What is that specifically – WG deliberation? Yes, in dnsop (mostly at the mic, as I recall). It used to say dnsop specifically (version -05) but a couple of people had stronger feelings than I that the language there should use the more expansive IETF umbrella. Me personally, my only strong feeling on the matter is that, though someone else has suggested that it just be excluded entirely, I want to see it included as historically relevant because we did spend time on the EDNS option issue only to have it ultimately be decided that it wasn't wanted. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
