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

[Erik Kline via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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.)


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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-add-resolver-info-12
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## 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.)

### 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?