Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures-06
review-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures-06-dnsdir-lc-van-dijk-2023-08-14-01
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | DNS Directorate (dnsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2023-08-17 | |
| Requested | 2023-08-03 | |
| Authors | Duane Wessels , William Carroll , Matthew Thomas | |
| I-D last updated | 2023-08-15 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -06
by Lucas Pardue
(diff)
Dnsdir Last Call review of -06 by Peter van Dijk (diff) Artart Last Call review of -06 by Barry Leiba (diff) Dnsdir Telechat review of -07 by Peter van Dijk (diff) Intdir Telechat review of -07 by Carlos Pignataro (diff) Dnsdir Last Call review of -03 by Peter van Dijk (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Peter van Dijk |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures by DNS Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/ONyvZK9_1xgXk__r1HigWBqu-bI | |
| Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 08) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2023-08-15 |
review-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures-06-dnsdir-lc-van-dijk-2023-08-14-01
Review update: I got the list of vendors wrong, below. Fixed in this revision. Thank you for processing my previous comments. The document is in great shape. I have one nit: One of the new sections based on my earlier comments is "2.7. FORMERR Responses". It currently says > Upon receipt of a FORMERR response, recursive clients generally retry their queries without EDNS(0). For most resolver implementations (Knot, PowerDNS, BIND, but not Unbound), this is only true if the FORMERR response does not contain EDNS(0)/OPT. There are auths out there that send FORMERR+OPT responses, and they are not getting non-EDNS0 fallback behaviour from such resolvers. > Thus, resolution failures from FORMERR responses are rare. This, meanwhile, remains true. When they happen, they tend to be persistent, and noticed, leading to fixes. I don't have a strong suggestion for rewording. Perhaps replace "recursive clients generally" with "some recursive clients might"? I can also live with the current text, but I did want to point out this nuance.