Thanks, Paul. If it’s okay for implementations, and it doesn’t cause issues, I’m good.
Joe
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, July 25, 2024 at 20:40
To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx <ops-dir@xxxxxxxx>, dnsop <dnsop@xxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis.all@xxxxxxxx>, last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Ext] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis-05
Thanks for following up. I've removed text about places were we are already fixing the text.
On Jul 25, 2024, at 12:39, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > First, in Section 3 why not just say that RD bit MUST NOT be set? Why leave it
> > to a MAY when setting the bit is undefined? Seems like the more prescriptive
> > you are the better.
>
> Some systems might set RD to 1 for all queries, such as due to lazy programming. Setting it to 1 does no harm to anyone.
> [JMC] Been there. Would it make sense, then, to say, “server MUST ignore RD”?
No, and for similar reasons. Some authoritative server software might pay attention to it, and there is no downside for it doing so.
--Paul Hoffman
|
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
