Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one

[Chris Box <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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.
>
>