[DNSOP] Mirja Kühlewind's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Mon, 10 September 2018 12:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 6F486130EB9; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 05:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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: <153658244644.26649.463764101726763839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 05:27:26 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/bpAfqRSk-PJOt-Va5Tx0VZ1jslU>
Subject: [DNSOP] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Yes_on_draft-ietf-dns?= =?utf-8?q?op-refuse-any-07=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
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 12:27:27 -0000

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: Yes

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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any/



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

I'm wondering if it would make sense to provide stronger guidance that the
conventional ANY response SHOULD be provided if TCP is used as TCP already
provides a retrun routability proof...? Also maybe provide a refernce to
RFC7766?

And one smallish comment: Would it make sense to refer
draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-09 (or actually the soon to be new RFC)
instead of RFC7719?