[DNSOP] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation-17: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Duke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation-17: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS.

Thanks to Mirja Kuhlewind for the TSVART review, and to the authors for
responding.

(1) I support Rob's DISCUSS (and Paul's comment) about SHOULD/MAY. "do it
unless the OS makes it impossible" is a typical use of SHOULD.

(2) Section 3.1, R1 says that responders SHOULD omit the fragment header. Under
what circumstances would it be reasonable to keep it?