On 21 Apr 2021, at 14:27, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2021, at 4:17 PM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> We’d like to advance this but it needs some active support, so we need to >> hear from folks who have found it useful, especially implementers. > > It is indeed useful, and should be published. However, the wording in the > draft needs to be updated about living in the world where TCP is already > required. RFC 7766 has been a standard for over five years, but some parts of > draft-ietf-dnsop-tcp-requirements, notably the abstract and introduction, use > words that indicate that support for TCP is not necessary mandated. The nuance that jtk pointed out on Monday was that 7766 largely punts on requirement for operators and instead focuses on requirements for implementers with updates on the standards track: Whilst this document makes no specific requirements for operators of DNS servers to meet, it does offer some suggestions to operators to help ensure that support for TCP on their servers and network is optimal. It should be noted that failure to support TCP (or the blocking of DNS over TCP at the network layer) will probably result in resolution failure and/or application-level timeouts. This document seeks to provide the same strong requirements language for operators, with updates as a BCP. That seems reasonable to me. The operational guidance in this document certainly seems to me usefully to fill a gap. I think I just spaced on the distinction during my Monday-morning review, but I suppose I might not be the only one, and that might be a sign that this document needs to make that point more forcefully. Joe
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
