Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation-17: 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-avoid-fragmentation/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS. Thanks to Mirja Kuhlewind for the TSVART review, and to the authors for responding. (1) I support Rob's DISCUSS (and Paul's comment) about SHOULD/MAY. "do it unless the OS makes it impossible" is a typical use of SHOULD. (2) Section 3.1, R1 says that responders SHOULD omit the fragment header. Under what circumstances would it be reasonable to keep it? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
