> On Aug 14, 2023, at 1:40 AM, Peter van Dijk via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Peter van Dijk > Review result: Ready with Nits > > Thank you for processing my previous comments. The document is in great shape. > I have one nit: > > One of the new sections based on my earlier comments is "2.7. FORMERR > Responses". It currently says > >> Upon receipt of a FORMERR response, recursive clients generally retry their > queries without EDNS(0). > > For most resolver implementations (Knot, Unbound, PowerDNS, but not BIND), this > is only true if the FORMERR response does not contain EDNS(0)/OPT. There are > auths out there that send FORMERR+OPT responses, and they are not getting > non-EDNS0 fallback behaviour from such resolvers. > >> Thus, resolution failures from FORMERR responses are rare. > > This, meanwhile, remains true. When they happen, they tend to be persistent, > and noticed, leading to fixes. > > I don't have a strong suggestion for rewording. Perhaps replace "recursive > clients generally" with "some recursive clients might"? I can also live with > the current text, but I did want to point out this nuance. > Peter, thanks for the feedback. How about this change to that paragraph? Upon receipt of a FORMERR response, some recursive clients will retry their queries without EDNS(0), while others will not. Nonetheless, resolution failures from FORMERR responses are rare. DW -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
