I've reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-03 and I found it to be a
useful document. I support it moving forward in its current form
although clarifications on a couple of points would be helpful.
i) There is still a slight disconnect between the text in 2.2/2.3 and
RFC2181 (referenced in the document) with respect to the re-querying
behavior of "possibly damaged" data. If respsize-03 actually
indicates true behavior, a note to this effect would help.
ii) Section 2.6 says "Some queries to non-existing names can be
large, however, this is not a problem because the responses include a
SOA record in the authority section". It would be useful to explain
why the "possibly damaged" condition is not a problem here.
iii) Is there anything to say about AAAA records in section 2.8? (I
felt there should be, since there didn't seem to be anything
currently in this draft that ties up with the conclusion in 4.3).
iv) In section 4.1 is there anything we lose by having all our name
servers reside under the same parent as opposed to having some of
them within a different zone?
v) Section 4.3: Why "two to five IPv6 nameserver address records" and
not "up to five" (or even "up to seven")? Relates to comment iii) above
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
