Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one
Hi Petr, On Mar 26, 2024, at 12:14, Petr Špaček wrote: >> Personally I think we do need people to read a little bit beyond the title >> if they are going to extract useful meaning from the document. If we accept >> that to be a reasonable goal then perhaps having a title that seems slightly >> intriguing is better than a title that is 100% spoiler. > > IMHO intriguing != incorrect. Intriguing is subjective. However, I think the title is objectively accurate, even if you do not like it. Joe ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one
On 19. 03. 24 7:15, Joe Abley wrote: Hi Chris, Thanks for the review! On 19 Mar 2024, at 03:28, Chris Box wrote: It is a little cart-before-horse in having the reasoning occur after the conclusion. But I can see the benefit in having a very clear statement up front in the document. Some people only read the beginning. The document was changed to be like this because the working group found the survey of current standards to be a bit of a distraction from the advice. The purpose is after all to clarify the standards, not to enjoy a voyage through them. I have one suggestion for improvement, which you can modify or ignore as you wish. Some people only read the title, particularly if they see it as part of a citation. And if that's all you see, it's not a clear message at all. "In the DNS, QDCOUNT is (usually) One" tells me nothing I don't already know. Yes it is usually one. However if you were to change the title to something like "In DNS queries, QDCOUNT must be <= 1" then I learn all I need to know from simply the title. To me, this is a win. Personally I think we do need people to read a little bit beyond the title if they are going to extract useful meaning from the document. If we accept that to be a reasonable goal then perhaps having a title that seems slightly intriguing is better than a title that is 100% spoiler. IMHO intriguing != incorrect. -- Petr Špaček ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one
Hi Chris, Thanks for the review! On 19 Mar 2024, at 03:28, Chris Box wrote: > It is a little cart-before-horse in having the reasoning occur after the > conclusion. But I can see the benefit in having a very clear statement up > front in the document. Some people only read the beginning. The document was changed to be like this because the working group found the survey of current standards to be a bit of a distraction from the advice. The purpose is after all to clarify the standards, not to enjoy a voyage through them. > I have one suggestion for improvement, which you can modify or ignore as you > wish. Some people only read the title, particularly if they see it as part of > a citation. And if that's all you see, it's not a clear message at all. "In > the DNS, QDCOUNT is (usually) One" tells me nothing I don't already know. Yes > it is usually one. However if you were to change the title to something like > "In DNS queries, QDCOUNT must be <= 1" then I learn all I need to know from > simply the title. To me, this is a win. Personally I think we do need people to read a little bit beyond the title if they are going to extract useful meaning from the document. If we accept that to be a reasonable goal then perhaps having a title that seems slightly intriguing is better than a title that is 100% spoiler. Joe ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one
DNSOP, I've reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-02. I find it generally very clear. It is a little cart-before-horse in having the reasoning occur after the conclusion. But I can see the benefit in having a very clear statement up front in the document. Some people only read the beginning. So I would be happy to see it published. I have one suggestion for improvement, which you can modify or ignore as you wish. Some people only read the title, particularly if they see it as part of a citation. And if that's all you see, it's not a clear message at all. "In the DNS, QDCOUNT is (usually) One" tells me nothing I don't already know. Yes it is usually one. However if you were to change the title to something like "In DNS queries, QDCOUNT must be <= 1" then I learn all I need to know from simply the title. To me, this is a win. Chris > On Feb 15, 2024, at 10:57 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > Hi, > > The qdcount draft is brief and straightforward, and there have been no new > changes proposed or issues introduced since the -01 version was posted. We > think there’s likely consensus to advance it for publication. > > This note starts a Working Group Last Call for > draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one. > > Current version of the draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one/ > <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1zy7o_DMFjx59mOf4ow8xUMFR_eBXjMPMJkV6u5DMsJfd8PbR-tdfMR3DahfQKeI4HXsgSYEGQQJltHWpSNDJ2EeBqcTDF1Nl9Yvy8c7h-Wz593aM0nKU8rl_Aot-ebiHKGIs7rC3YwUEG-99i8jqzsB6AeCrkNapCOHOpUk_tAjcfGLSsrXEYHFNWGT1wENN-XzmHK1P6ntaCQav5fylZscsQRz9_zEBU-D_rvhx5qEN2H5nQBclkO_-PHC1efzrvrRfbp1Qsq31F7JzioAWTuQJtEnHKSYm_g4957gx-wc/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one%2F> > > The Current Intended Status of this document is: Proposed Standard > > Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. > > For WGLC, we need positive support and constructive comments; lack of > objection is not enough. So if you think this draft should be published as > an RFC, please say so. > > ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one
I’ve reviewed qdcount-is-one-02 and find it to be ready for publication as an RFC. DW > On Mar 5, 2024, at 6:51 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > Hi, > > We're leaving this open a few more days to allow for any other comments. We'd > like to submit it for publication before IETF 119. > > > Thanks, > Suzanne > For the chairs > >> On Feb 15, 2024, at 10:57 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The qdcount draft is brief and straightforward, and there have been no new >> changes proposed or issues introduced since the -01 version was posted. We >> think there’s likely consensus to advance it for publication. >> >> This note starts a Working Group Last Call for >> draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one. >> >> Current version of the draft is available here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one/ >> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1zy7o_DMFjx59mOf4ow8xUMFR_eBXjMPMJkV6u5DMsJfd8PbR-tdfMR3DahfQKeI4HXsgSYEGQQJltHWpSNDJ2EeBqcTDF1Nl9Yvy8c7h-Wz593aM0nKU8rl_Aot-ebiHKGIs7rC3YwUEG-99i8jqzsB6AeCrkNapCOHOpUk_tAjcfGLSsrXEYHFNWGT1wENN-XzmHK1P6ntaCQav5fylZscsQRz9_zEBU-D_rvhx5qEN2H5nQBclkO_-PHC1efzrvrRfbp1Qsq31F7JzioAWTuQJtEnHKSYm_g4957gx-wc/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one%2F> >> >> The Current Intended Status of this document is: Proposed Standard >> >> Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. >> >> For WGLC, we need positive support and constructive comments; lack of >> objection is not enough. So if you think this draft should be published as >> an RFC, please say so. >> >> If you feel the document is *not* ready for publication, please speak out >> with your reasons. >> >> This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on: 29 >> February, 2024. >> >> thanks, >> Suzanne (for the chairs) > > ___ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://secure-web.cisco.com/18BZXO046m-S-gFeTS8XVcBsn9c8bXsZLW_u3jUtVr3RvaQjL6K1zd0EeNxHSeBG8rRzmBD0skEhWfjqDfjet_3mXJAWwn_kG94MFRIEQrA6ucQRfzAUFMzMwdrz1P8lCnXIwK8oJWEiyeY6x6HzH-XvLrcZpzOqqzJhCIHidCQv2B9XsjiUdWoxLTwwqEb35o6GYSm67GIxNfKHWw6KBxtUXzFM-WkA0cY4LHZGgNwdPEYRNkczNlmIiGK_JeHj39iGlhOf_mpLCvzTp7E6CZdxg8snEGSdjLFNcijnvz5o/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdnsop smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one
Hi, We're leaving this open a few more days to allow for any other comments. We'd like to submit it for publication before IETF 119. Thanks, Suzanne For the chairs On Feb 15, 2024, at 10:57 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: Hi, The qdcount draft is brief and straightforward, and there have been no new changes proposed or issues introduced since the -01 version was posted. We think there’s likely consensus to advance it for publication. This note starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one. Current version of the draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one/ The Current Intended Status of this document is: Proposed Standard Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. For WGLC, we need positive support and constructive comments; lack of objection is not enough. So if you think this draft should be published as an RFC, please say so. If you feel the document is *not* ready for publication, please speak out with your reasons. This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on: 29 February, 2024. thanks, Suzanne (for the chairs) ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one
On 20 Feb 2024, at 11:55, jab...@strandkip.nl wrote: > That is some good, arcane DNS knowledge right there, Niall, I like it! 8-) > [...] > Perhaps it's worth making it even more clear that this is just a provision > for AXFR responses by specifying the QTYPE? Something like: > > DNS Zone Transfer Protocol (AXFR) [RFC5936] in Section 2.2 allows > an authoritative server optionally to send a response message > (QR = 1) to a standard AXFR query (OpCode = 0, QTYPE=252) with > QDCOUNT = 0 in the second or subsequent message of a multi-message > response. WFM. Thanks, Joe. Niall ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one
On 20 Feb 2024, at 12:38, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > I think it would help, for completeness, and the better > to support the inexperienced reader of the DNS scriptures, > to include mention of RFC5936 (AXFR) in the "brief summary > of the guidance provided in the existing DNS specification" > contained in Appendix A. That is some good, arcane DNS knowledge right there, Niall, I like it! > Perhaps the following text, modelled on the existing mention > of DNS Cookies [RFC7873], would suit. > > DNS Zone Transfer Protocol (AXFR) [RFC5936] > in Section 2.2 allows an authoritative server optionally > to send a response message (QR = 1) to a standard query > (OpCode = 0) with QDCOUNT = 0, in a message which is the > second or subsequent message of a multi-message response. Perhaps it's worth making it even more clear that this is just a provision for AXFR responses by specifying the QTYPE? Something like: DNS Zone Transfer Protocol (AXFR) [RFC5936] in Section 2.2 allows an authoritative server optionally to send a response message (QR = 1) to a standard AXFR query (OpCode = 0, QTYPE=252) with QDCOUNT = 0 in the second or subsequent message of a multi-message response. Without that extra clue I had to scuttle off to look at the original text to make sure this was not some general multi-message response case introduced in a dark corner that I was not aware of. Knowing that it only relates to AXFR helped. I realise the whole paragraph spells out what the reference is to, but it surely wouldn't be the first time that some protocol-wide clarification was found hiding behind the curtain in the spare room. Joe ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one
On 15 Feb 2024, at 15:57, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > The qdcount draft is brief and straightforward and very welcome. I think it would help, for completeness, and the better to support the inexperienced reader of the DNS scriptures, to include mention of RFC5936 (AXFR) in the "brief summary of the guidance provided in the existing DNS specification" contained in Appendix A. Perhaps the following text, modelled on the existing mention of DNS Cookies [RFC7873], would suit. DNS Zone Transfer Protocol (AXFR) [RFC5936] in Section 2.2 allows an authoritative server optionally to send a response message (QR = 1) to a standard query (OpCode = 0) with QDCOUNT = 0, in a message which is the second or subsequent message of a multi-message response. Thanks to the authors! Niall ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one
Hi, The qdcount draft is brief and straightforward, and there have been no new changes proposed or issues introduced since the -01 version was posted. We think there’s likely consensus to advance it for publication. This note starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one. Current version of the draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one/ The Current Intended Status of this document is: Proposed Standard Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. For WGLC, we need positive support and constructive comments; lack of objection is not enough. So if you think this draft should be published as an RFC, please say so. If you feel the document is *not* ready for publication, please speak out with your reasons. This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on: 29 February, 2024. thanks, Suzanne (for the chairs) ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
