Hi Tobias, On 28 Nov 2025, at 17:00, Tobias Fiebig <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But I'm just providing a review as requested, I claim no right of >> veto and make no statements about consensus :-) > > Appreciated. :-) However, to clarify the question: > > Would this not being addressed be a consensus inhibitor for you? Our working group chairs have the job of judging consensus. Mine is just one voice. > If so, > would, e.g., a statement explicitly acknowledging this and > contextualizing it help with that (instead of expanding the document > for everything beyond plain DNS-over-UDP/TCP)? > > I personally think that going for the option you suggested would open > another box, and likely be difficult for, e.g., Ralph in a similar > sense as the current version for you. The most both-sides-agreeable > option would, imho, be an acknowledgement and ref to RFC9539. I think the document is useful and well-written. I just don't see a reason to ignore a set of defined DNS transport protocols that exist today and which don't suffer from fragmentation problems, and I think the document would be improved if it acknowledged that there are more solutions here than just TCP. I don't think we can do that simply by adding a reference to RFC 9539. Again, I am not demanding change, just offering a suggestion for improvement :-) Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
