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

Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 04 April 2024 07:53 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-add-resolver-info@ietf.org, add-chairs@ietf.org, add@ietf.org, tojens@microsoft.com
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <171221719631.7386.13265277017833601894@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:53:16 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/NsqJ876HU16PwgOPGNwFK_nSfvY>
Subject: [Add] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-add-resolver-info-12: (with COMMENT)

Murray Kucherawy 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.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-add-resolver-info/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the quick IANA Considerations fix, clearing my DISCUSS.  I've left
the rest of my original comment here:

In Section 5:

  "Note that, as per the rules for the keys defined in Section 6.4 of
  [RFC6763], if there is no '=' in a key, then it is a boolean attribute,
  simply identified as being present, with no value."

I don't know what it means for a Boolean value to be "present".  Do you mean
that its presence in the record indicates the value is "true"?

The last few sentences of the description of "infourl" seem awfully hand-wavy. 
You might want to simplify this by saying it's a URI referring to content that
may be useful for debugging, and just leave it at that.  And I don't understand
the SHOULD here; what's the alternative you're trying to discourage?

Once the list of registered RESINFO keywords is big enough, it's possible to
pack enough of them into one of these records to cause truncation and a switch
to TCP.  Should we be encouraging registration of shorter names wherever
possible to forestall this?

[Add] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ie… Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker