[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: Mirja Kühlewind <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] Mirja Kühlewind's Yes 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 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?
- [DNSOP] Mirja Kühlewind's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [DNSOP] Mirja Kühlewind's Yes on draft-ietf-d… Ólafur Guðmundsson
- Re: [DNSOP] Mirja Kühlewind's Yes on draft-ietf-d… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [DNSOP] Mirja Kühlewind's Yes on draft-ietf-d… 神明達哉
- Re: [DNSOP] Mirja Kühlewind's Yes on draft-ietf-d… Ólafur Guðmundsson
- Re: [DNSOP] Mirja Kühlewind's Yes on draft-ietf-d… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] Mirja Kühlewind's Yes on draft-ietf-d… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)