Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm wondering if it would make sense to provide stronger guidance that the conventional ANY response SHOULD be provided if TCP is used as TCP already provides a retrun routability proof...? Also maybe provide a refernce to RFC7766? And one smallish comment: Would it make sense to refer draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-09 (or actually the soon to be new RFC) instead of RFC7719? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
