[DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Mon, 10 September 2018 23:27 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69034127133; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any@ietf.org, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, tjw.ietf@gmail.com, dnsop@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.83.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153662206042.16097.17276434244111235876.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:27:40 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/I2SYVvhrUxMQuhrFf541bIquGZo>
Subject: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 23:27:41 -0000

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thanks for the work that went into the mechanism, and especially to the early
deployers who found issues to be addressed. I have a small handful of comments
that the authors may wish to address prior to advancing the document to



>  A DNS responder which receives an ANY query MAY decline to provide a
>  conventional ANY response

Nit: "A DNS responder that receives..."



>  The CPU field of the HINFO RDATA SHOULD be set to RFCXXXX

Then, in §5:

>  A DNS initiator MAY suppress queries with QTYPE=ANY in the event that
>  the local cache contains a matching HINFO resource record with
>  RDATA.CPU field, as described in Section 4.

This looks like it's asking for a comparison. If such is the case, I think you
need to indicate whether the value being compared is done so in a case-sensitive
fashion. You probably also want to be pretty explicit about the literal string
value to be used (e.g., be clear that the value doesn't contain a space).



>  The
>  specific value used is hence a familiar balance when choosing TTL for
>  any RR in any zone, and be specified according to local policy.

Nit: This sentence appears to be missing a word. Perhaps "...and will be
specified..." or similar.



>  In particular, systems SHOULD NOT rely upon the HINFO
>  RDATA described in this seection to distinguish between synthesised
>  and non-synthesised HINFO RRSets.

Nit: "section"

More substantive comment: Since the CPU field SHOULD indicate this document,
implementations could reasonably infer that the HINFO RRSet is synthesized based
on its value, right? That seems worth mentioning here.



>  A DNS initiator which sends a query with QTYPE=ANY and receives a

Nit: "...initiator that sends..."