[ Note: CC list edited ] Hi there authors,
During the IETF LC Stephane supported the document (an important document, worthy of publication), but noted that: 1: the document only deals with auth servers and that it should be more explicit and 2: that Section 3 is confusing, and that Matt had provided some text which helps make this better -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/_Nq8PAVOapIVal2BS7P-jlWmnuc Having reread section 3 (and Matt's suggestions) I agree with Stephane on both of these - I also think that addressing these should be quite easy (I don't think it requires a "restructuring"), especially as Matt has provided suggested text... I'd appreciate if you can address these, and SHOUT LOUDLY once you've had a chance to do so (or let me know how else you'd like to handle this). I also think that it would be worth adding an Acknowledgements section... Thanks, W On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:00 PM The IESG <iesg-secret...@ietf.org> wrote: > > > The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG > (dnsop) to consider the following document: - 'A Common Operational Problem > in DNS Servers - Failure To Communicate.' > <draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-14.txt> as Best Current Practice > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > last-c...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-12-19. Exceptionally, comments may > be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning > of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > The DNS is a query / response protocol. Failing to respond to > queries, or responding incorrectly, causes both immediate operational > problems and long term problems with protocol development. > > This document identifies a number of common kinds of queries to which > some servers either fail to respond or else respond incorrectly. > This document also suggests procedures for zone operators to apply to > identify and remediate the problem. > > The document does not look at the DNS data itself, just the structure > of the responses. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > The document contains these normative downward references. > See RFC 3967 for additional information: > rfc6840: Clarifications and Implementation Notes for DNS Security > (DNSSEC) (Proposed Standard - IETF stream) > rfc3225: Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC (Proposed Standard - IETF > stream) > rfc7766: DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements (Proposed > Standard - IETF stream) > rfc4035: Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions (Proposed > Standard - IETF stream) > > > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
