(1) RFC is Best Current Practice, and this is the proper type of RFC
EDNS0 enables a DNS server to send large responses using UDP and is
widely deployed. Large DNS/UDP responses are fragmented, and IP
fragmentation has exposed weaknesses in application protocols. It is
possible to avoid IP fragmentation in DNS by limiting response size
where possible, and signaling the need to upgrade from UDP to TCP
transport where necessary. This document proposes to avoid IP
fragmentation in DNS.
Working Group Summary:
The working group had a few issues to work through, which included adding an
appendix for implementations. Several comments came in after WGLC, but they
were very relevant, so the working group addressed them.
There are currently no issues and solid consensus with the final document.
Document is of good quality.
Document Shepherd is Tim Wicinski
Responsible Area Director is Warren Kumari
(3) Document Shepherd did an editorial review, as a detailed technical review.
Document is ready.
(4) Document Shepherd has no concerns over quality of review
(5) No broader review needed
(6) Document Shepherd does not have any concerns.
(7) All authors confirm no IPR
(8) No IPR
(9) WG Consensus is solid.
(10) No Appeals threatened
(11) No nits
(12) No formal reviews needed
(13) all references identified correctly.
(14) All normative references are ready.
(15) No downward normative references
(16) No existing RFCs will be updated.
(17) No IANA
(18) No IANA
(20) No Yang