Petr Thanks for clarifying. I was going through so many notes, and needed a check.
1. Forwarding Semantics Let me think on this one with the authors and chairs. 2. Stub Resolvers. OK 3. Standards-Track vs Not That's more than reasonable. Tim On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 1:48 PM Petr Špaček <petr.spa...@nic.cz> wrote: > On 21. 10. 19 19:18, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > > > All > > > > The second WGLC period ended, and I needed a bit of time to go over all > the comments and make sure they were all addressed, and that appears to be > true. > > > > The only thing I see are some comments were raised after the -12 > version. They've been addressed and can be updated on its way to IETF LC.. > If someone thinks > > I am incorrect please speak up. > > I hate to rain on this parade, but I think the draft in its current form > has two major problems: > > 1. Forwarding semantics is unclear, as was pointed out in > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/PAiQOsYfYQHrL7SeGWZn-jtJrTs > and elsewhere during WGLC. > > Personally I think that omiting forwaring is a major mistake because the > EDE code is most useful for diagnostics when forwarding is taking place! > > > 2. Second problem is that it is uncelar if there is going to be a > consumer: Did *anyone* from stub resolvers said a word about this draft? Is > it useful as it is? Is there an experimental implementation in stub to > consume this information? > dnsop has history of tweaks which never get used by stubs, and this draft > in particular is very expensive to implement in resolver code. > > > Besides technical points above I oppose publishing this as standards-track > document before it is fully implementated at least once. Previous > implementation excercise at IETF 104 hackaton uncovered nasty corner cases > and significantly influenced the draft (removal of rcode field etc.). It > would be mistake to publish it without re-implementing it again before > publication, we might find other significant problems. > > Thank you. > Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC > > > > > I'll confirm with the authors and finish the shepherd write up > > > > Tim > > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 5:07 PM Wes Hardaker <wjh...@hardakers.net > <mailto:wjh...@hardakers.net>> wrote: > > > > Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bert...@open-xchange.com <mailto: > vittorio.bert...@open-xchange.com>> writes: > > > > > > Il 28 settembre 2019 01:41 Wes Hardaker <wjh...@hardakers.net > <mailto:wjh...@hardakers.net>> ha scritto: > > > > > > > > + Response: Those three codes were supplied in a previous > comment > > > > round and they are supposed to indicate policies being > applied from > > > > different sources. Can you check the new text of them to > see if > > > > they are more understandable now? > > > > > > I think there was an editorial glitch, so now you have two errors > #17 > > > and no #18 - 3.19 should become #18 again. > > > > Yep, fixed. Thanks. > > > > -- > > Wes Hardaker > > USC/ISI > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > DNSOP mailing list > > DNSOP@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
