[DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-03: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-03: 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-qdcount-is-one/



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

** idnits says

  == The 'Updates: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_
     of the RFCs which will be updated by this document (if approved); it
     should not include the word 'RFC' in the list.

** Section 4.
   Firewalls that process DNS messages in order to eliminate unwanted
   traffic SHOULD treat messages with OPCODE = 0 and QDCOUNT > 1 as
   malformed traffic and return a FORMERR response as described above.
   Such firewalls MUST NOT treat messages with OPCODE = 0 and QDCOUNT =
   0 as malformed.  See Section 4 of [RFC8906] for further guidance.

(Editorial) Should the term “firewall” be generalized to “middle box” (or
something similar)?  I ask because I’m wondering if DNS proxies, UTMs, or IPSs
should also follow this advice?