> On 20 Jul 2015, at 12:19, Petr Spacek <[email protected]> wrote: > > The -02 version of the draft makes a lot of sense to me, here are only two > nits:
Many thanks for the review. > On 20 Jul 2015, at 12:19, Petr Spacek <[email protected]> wrote: > > Section 5 says: > > "... TCP should be considered a valid alternative transport to > UDP, not purely a fallback option.". > > To me it seems as the very very core of the draft. Personally I would add this > to Introduction and even to Abstract to make it super clear. Now it is kind of > buried. Thanks - good point. > > > 6.1. Current practices > Explicit reference to edns-tcp-keepalive could be good so it is easier to read > and follow, especially if edns-tcp-keepalive gets finalized. Yes, the only reason it wasn’t there is that the 5966bis-02 was ready when the status of the edns-tcp-keepalive draft was still a bit up in the air. Now keepalive has moved forward it makes sense to add the reference. Sara. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
