[alto] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-xdom-disc-05: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 17 July 2019 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: alto@ietf.org
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 291A112006A; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-alto-xdom-disc@ietf.org, Jan Seedorf <jan.seedorf@hft-stuttgart.de>, alto-chairs@ietf.org, jan.seedorf@hft-stuttgart.de, alto@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.99.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <156340393916.25833.11508102922044405602.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:52:19 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/47OgaedY5KvaO1GNdI-JrRuKQ1U>
Subject: [alto] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-xdom-disc-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <alto.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/alto/>
List-Post: <mailto:alto@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 22:52:19 -0000

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-xdom-disc-05: 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:


Thank you for the updates; they have captured enough of the discussion we had
to clarify that most of my points of concern are either non-concerns or have
adequate workarounds.

I'm still not entirely sure that DNSSEC in the reverse zone is available everywhere
in a robust fashion, but it seems that there is enough availability that the mechanisms
specified here can still be used in a useful manner.

However, I do think that we need to clarify in Section 5.2.2 that this mechanism is
compatible with the BCP 20 sub-allocation scheme only insamuch as you can add
NAPTR records in the relevant locations -- the current procedures described in the
text will not catch everything just on their own, IIUC.

Also, one nit in Section 2: s/is usually always be set/is usually set/