Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9520 <draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures-08> for your review

["Carroll, William" <[e-mail]>]

I approve the RFC for publication. Responses are inline below.



Thank you,

William Carroll



On 12/11/23, 4:47 PM, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]%3e> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:



Authors and *AD,





While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.





1) <!-- [rfced] To match RFC 2308, may we update the formatting of "type

(2)" and "type (3)" to "TYPE 2" and "TYPE 3", respectively?





Original:

RFC 2308 specifies requirements for DNS negative caching. There,

caching of type (2) responses is mandatory and caching of type (3)

responses is optional.





Perhaps:

RFC 2308 specifies requirements for DNS negative caching. There,

caching of TYPE 2 responses is mandatory and caching of TYPE 3

responses is optional.

-->



I approve of this change.





2) <!--[rfced] Based on EID 4489 (www.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid4489<http://www.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid4489>) should either a) a reference entry to RFC 2136 be added or b) SERVFAIL be defined in the text?

-->



Please use RFC 8499 as the reference. SERVFAIL is defined in section 3.





3) <!--[rfced] Please confirm that no citation of an example of an

"anecdote" etc. should be included here:





Original:

A number of different anecdotes, experiments, and incidents support

this claim.

-->



Yes, confirmed. The anecdotes, etc. are described in the rest of the section.





4) <!--[rfced] *AD - Please review/approve the following update submitted by W. Carroll on Nov 11.





Original:

However, this would require continued spoofing throughout the backoff

period and required attacks due to the 5 minute cache limit.





Current:

However, this would require continued spoofing throughout the backoff

period and repeated attacks due to the 5-minute cache limit.





-->



Approved.





5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the two artwork elements in Sections 2.4

and 2.5 and let us know if any should be marked as sourcecode (or

another element) instead.





If so, please consider whether the “type" attribute of any sourcecode

element should be set and/or has been set correctly.





The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at www.rfc-editor.org%2Fmaterials%2Fsourcecode-types.txt If<http://www.rfc-editor.org%2Fmaterials%2Fsourcecode-types.txt%20If> the

current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to suggest

additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable to leave

the "type" attribute not set.

-->



Please use type dns-rr.





6) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, we see both "Root" and "root".

Please let us know if/how to make these consistent.

-->



Please use lowercase “root.” The only use of "Root" I could find was in "increases were also observed at the Root and TLD levels."





7) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon

first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please

review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure

correctness.





Resource Record (RR)

Top-Level Domain (TLD)

Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))

-->



Approved, thank you.





8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the

online Style Guide

www.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language<http://www.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed.





Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this

should still be reviewed as a best practice.

-->



I do not see any changes needed.





Thank you.





RFC Editor/st/mf





*****IMPORTANT*****





Updated 2023/12/11





RFC Author(s):

--------------





Instructions for Completing AUTH48





Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and

approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.

If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies

available as listed in the FAQ ().





You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties

(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing

your approval.





Planning your review

---------------------





Please review the following aspects of your document:





* RFC Editor questions





Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor

that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as

follows:





<!-- [rfced] ... -->





These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.





* Changes submitted by coauthors





Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your

coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you

agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.





* Content





Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot

change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:

- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)

- contact information

- references





* Copyright notices and legends





Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in

RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions

(TLP –).





* Semantic markup





Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of

content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>

and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at.





* Formatted output





Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the

formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is

reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting

limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.









Submitting changes

------------------





To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all

the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties

include:





* your coauthors





* [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail] (the RPC team)





* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,

IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the

responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).





* [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list

to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion

list:





* More info:





* The archive itself:





* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out

of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).

If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you

have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and

its addition will be noted at the top of the message.





You may submit your changes in one of two ways:





An update to the provided XML file

— OR —

An explicit list of changes in this format





Section # (or indicate Global)





OLD:

old text





NEW:

new text





You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit

list of changes, as either form is sufficient.





We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem

beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,

and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in

the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.









Approving for publication

--------------------------





To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating

that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,

as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.









Files

-----





The files are available here:





Diff file of the text:





Diff of the XML:



The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own

diff files of the XML.





Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:





XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates

only:







Tracking progress

-----------------





The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:





Please let us know if you have any questions.





Thank you for your cooperation,





RFC Editor





--------------------------------------

RFC9520 (draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures-08)





Title : Negative Caching of DNS Resolution Failures

Author(s) : D. Wessels, W. Carroll, M. Thomas

WG Chair(s) : Suzanne Woolf, Benno Overeinder, Tim Wicinski





Area Director(s) : Warren Kumari, Robert Wilton