On Sun, 19 Aug 2018, Stefan Santesson wrote:
Reviewer: Stefan Santesson Review result: Has Nits
Thanks for your review.
In agreement with nit comments in the Gen-Art review. 1) Section 2. Background seems to be a duplication with the introduction section and could probably be merged with this section.
I agree. It is so small we can pull it into the Introduction.
2) In general I wander wether the requirement level "SHOULD" is to week in some places. The concern (and question) here is whether this may lead to uncertainty whether a Split-DNS configuration always will provide the expected level of security (or fail), or wether such configuration may lead to successful communication without the expected level of security ( in compliance with this specification).
Unfortunately, this is the case because of the original text regarding CFG requests and replies that basically allow each party to omit or send these completely ignoring which of these CFG's the other party decided to include. We actually had to loosen up the language or otherwise we would be modifying the behaviour specified in 5996/7296. Paul
