Subject: [DNSOP] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:25 -0700

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: No Objection

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 generally like this document, but I find it to be too wishy washy because of
use of SHOULDs instead of MUSTs. I would have liked a bit more guidance early
on about different choices or at least a statement that this is a rarely used
feature and thus any choice is reasonably good.

---

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:33:19 +1100

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 2:56 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Alexey
you have summarized correctly the translation from the earliest version of
the document to something the WG could agree on.
The choices are dictated by capabilities and implementation approaches,
 i.e. HINFO response can be used for all unsigned zones and DNSSEC signed
zones if the server does online-signing,
the "one RRset" response can be used for all zones but is hard for servers
that fetch RRsets from DB.

-- 
Ólafur Gudmundsson | Engineering Director
www.cloudflare.com blog.cloudflare.com