Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-03: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** idnits says == The 'Updates: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be updated by this document (if approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list. ** Section 4. Firewalls that process DNS messages in order to eliminate unwanted traffic SHOULD treat messages with OPCODE = 0 and QDCOUNT > 1 as malformed traffic and return a FORMERR response as described above. Such firewalls MUST NOT treat messages with OPCODE = 0 and QDCOUNT = 0 as malformed. See Section 4 of [RFC8906] for further guidance. (Editorial) Should the term “firewall” be generalized to “middle box” (or something similar)? I ask because I’m wondering if DNS proxies, UTMs, or IPSs should also follow this advice? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
