On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 12:07 PM Ondřej Surý <ond...@isc.org> wrote:
> Tim, > > I think I’ve just did that in the previous email. I feel that gathering > information about more implementations first would be better, so the > section on Implementation could be uniform for all gathered input. > > Ondrej > I agree, and will take your initial email as such. tim > -- > Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him) > > My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not > feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. > > On 24. 1. 2023, at 15:47, Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The chairs thank all for this feedback, even at this stage. But it's > better to catch these issues now, than > later on in the process. > > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 3:52 PM Ondřej Surý <ond...@isc.org> wrote: > >> I am indifferent about what label we stick on this, but perhaps the >> document should have a section on implementations? >> >> However, I do feel that the Security Considerations is missing on the >> risks of dropping packets, ICMP filtering and dangers of PMTUD. >> >> Also it feels weird to me that the IP_PMTUDISC_OMIT is used by: BIND 9, >> NSD, Unbound, Knot DNS and PowerDNS, but neither the fact nor the reasoning >> behind the option is ever mentioned here. >> >> Hence, I think the Implementors section should be added to the document. > > > an Implementation Section would be useful and generally they appear as an > Appendix. > > Ondrej, if you could suggest some text with what ISC will implement, along > with any reasoning, that would be a great start. > > tim > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
