On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Suzanne Woolf <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > This is a reminder to the WG about this draft: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-01. > > Several people offered to review previously, and we've already pinged > them. However, there's no need to limit yourself from participating just > because you didn't volunteer :-) > > There's a new revision of the draft as of December 2015 (thanks, Mark!). > If the WG's earlier questions about this draft are answered, and it's > generally ready to advance, the chairs would like to do a WG Last Call. But > first it would be reassuring to have some in-depth reviews of the newest > version. > > If you have some time for a careful reading of the draft, and to send a > review to the author and the WG, it will be greatly appreciated. > > It's particularly helpful if you can flag: > * places where the text might not be clear > * places where assumptions or recommendations may need additional > support > * things that could be removed (redundant or unnecessary) > * any issues you think the WG should discuss further > > The current requested status is BCP, which means extra review by the IESG > and an IETF-wide Last Call, so let's resolve any issues first. > > > thanks, > Suzanne & Tim > > Typographical concerns: 2.4. EDNS Flags "there" should be "they" 4. Firewalls and Load Balancers "Requests with unknown EDNS versions is expected client behaviour should not be trued as an attack The correct behaviour for unknown EDNS versions is to return BADVERS along with the highest EDNS version the server supports." Missing period (".") at the end of the first sentence. "trued" should "construed" -- Bob Harold
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
