Early Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-01
review-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-01-dnsdir-early-brown-2024-01-17-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 04) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | DNS Directorate (dnsdir) | |
Deadline | 2024-01-17 | |
Requested | 2024-01-04 | |
Requested by | Tim Wicinski | |
Authors | Ray Bellis , Joe Abley | |
I-D last updated | 2024-01-17 | |
Completed reviews |
Dnsdir Last Call review of -03
by Matt Brown
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Linda Dunbar (diff) Artart Last Call review of -03 by Barry Leiba (diff) Dnsdir Early review of -01 by Matt Brown (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Carlos Pignataro |
|
Comments |
getting ready for WGLC |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Matt Brown |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one by DNS Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/aqtpDYZJzgtX4_7kWwRmZ6pAAPc | |
Reviewed revision | 01 (document currently at 04) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2024-01-17 |
review-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-01-dnsdir-early-brown-2024-01-17-00
I have been selected as the DNS Directorate reviewer for this draft. The DNS Directorate seeks to review all DNS or DNS-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the ADs. For more information about the DNS Directorate, please see https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/dnsdir This draft proposes addition of normative language updating RFC1035 to specify that QDCOUNT must not be > 1 for OPCODE=0 (QUERY) DNS requests. The intent is to eliminate present ambiguity in the specification where QDCOUNT is not required to be <= 1, but (as described by section A.1 and A.5 of the draft) in practical terms given the meaning of other fields (AA) and the surrounding language in RFC1035 it is undefined how such a question should or even could be interpreted and usefully responded to. The proposal has been discussed in the dnsop group and previous meetings and my observation of the discussion is that there is both broad agreement that QDCOUNT > 1 is not used in practice and at least some supporting evidence presented that it is not observed in the wild either. The draft itself is clear and understandable. Both the language and the substance of the proposal make sense to me. Given this previous discussion and clarity of proposal I see no blockers or issues for the ADs to consider and recommend this draft is ready to be progressed further.