Hi Paul, and thanks for your review. > The requirements in Section 2 should be clearly stated as being appropriate only for the authoritative name service. The last bullet says this, but the first bullet says "MUST implement core DNS [RFC1035] and clarifications to the DNS [RFC2181]." That could be interpreted as saying that the root name service must follow all the rules of RFC 1035, not just those that apply to authoritative name servers, and there are a bunch that should not be required. Consider changing that sentence fragment to "MUST implement core DNS [RFC1035] and clarifications to the DNS [RFC2181], as an authoritative name service”. I think this seems reasonable. Marc? > Another bullet in Section 2 may be problematic: > MUST generate checksums when sending UDP datagrams and MUST verify > checksums when receiving UDP datagrams containing a non-zero > checksum. > What happens if a root name server receives a UDP datagram with a bad checksum? It fails verification, but then what? This sentence *might* incorporate the following clarification, but I'm not sure if it actually matches the intent. > MUST generate checksums when sending UDP datagrams, and MUST > ignore a received UDP datagram containing a non-zero checksum > when that checksum does not verify. > If that's not the intent, I'm not sure what "verify" means without a follow-on action. I would not like to specify protocol in this document. It would be best if one of the referenced documents already said this, and we could simply add a reference. Do they? Jari
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail