Re: [Add] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-add-resolver-info-12: (with COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

Hi Erik, 

Thank you for the review. 

An attempt to address your review can be seen at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?url_1=https://boucadair.github.io/add-resolver-information/draft-ietf-add-resolver-info.txt&url_2=https://boucadair.github.io/add-resolver-information/boucadair-patch-2/draft-ietf-add-resolver-info.txt

Please see inline for more context.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Erik Kline via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : samedi 30 mars 2024 22:25
> À : The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-add-resolver-info-12:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> 
> Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-add-resolver-info-12: 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.)
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-add-resolver-info-12
> CC @ekline
> 
> 
> ## Comments
> 
> ### S5
> 
> * For "exterr", does this mean that a server that supports RFC 8914 in
> full
>   should reply with:
> 
> 
> "exterr=0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,
> 24"
> 
>   Without some attempt at summarizing this (e.g. "=0-24") there is a
> penalty
>   to supporting more error codes over time. Of course, summarization
> schemes
>   do introduce their own parsing complexity. :-/
> 
>   This is obviously a minor concern/comment, though.  (No action
> needed.)

[Med] Not all these codes will be returned because the focus of returned info is those related to privacy/transparency, but I hear your comment. Added a new sentence to remind the scope of the selected initial info + added a provision to return ranges. 

> 
> ### S7
> 
> * It occurs to me that an encrypted resolver might return correct
> information
>   for itself but this information could still be incorrect for other
>   resolvers that are part of a shared serving infrastructure (i.e.
> those
>   servers comprising the service behind a resolver VIP).
> 
>   It might be worth noting some operational guidance like all
> resolvers
>   in a group SHOULD have consistent RESINFO?
> 

[Med] Good point. Updated the text accordingly.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.