Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-add-dnr-10

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hey, Med.  See below.

 


[Med] We don't include such details because:
* Whether a client asks for Do53 in addition to encrypted DNS is implementation and policy based.
* Also, how a DNS selects among learned Do53 and Encrypted DNS servers is beyond discovery.

 

[JC] I get how this can be left up to the server and/or client.  Still, with an operator hat on, it might be nice to see a RECOMMENDED blurb that when presented with both encrypted and unencrypted DNS options, a client SHOULD choose the encrypted DNS.



  You mention you initially thought of using those
> approaches, but that leads to probing.
>
> Section-wise, I found a couple of nits:
>
> Section 3.1.8:
>
> s/If the checks fail, the receiver discards/If any of the checks
> fail, the receiver MUST discard/

[Med] OK for the first part of the suggested change. For the second one, we are not using the normative language on purpose because otherwise this will be redundant with text such as:

   The DHCPv6 client MUST silently discard any OPTION_V6_DNR that fails
   to pass the validation steps defined in Section 3.1.8.

[JC] It was this that prompted me to suggest the strong text.  But I’m okay with not having it in both places.

 

Joe

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux