[DNSOP] Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures-07: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures-07: Yes

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-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures/



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for
draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures-07

Thank you for the work put into this document. It should indeed be VERY useful !

Please find belowsome non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Andrew McConachie for the shepherd's write-up *but it lacks*
the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Carlos Pignataro , the Internet directorate reviewer, please
consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures-07-intdir-telechat-pignataro-2023-09-06/
(I have read Duane's reply, thanks)

Other thanks to Peter van Dijk, the DNS directorate reviewer, please consider
this dns-dir review (as a follow-up of his Last Call review):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures-07-dnsdir-telechat-van-dijk-2023-09-04/

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS

## Abstract

`RFC 2308 specifies requirements for DNS negative caching` should this
statement only apply to (2) responses and not (1) responses (as this would be
positive caching) ?

## Section 2.2 (and other places)

Is there a reason why EXAMPLE.COM is in uppercase in the text ? This is really
unusual.

Please follow RFC 5952 and write IPv6 address is lower case (BTW thanks for
using modern addressing)