Re: [DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09: (with COMMENT)

Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> Thu, 05 December 2019 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <tale@dd.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D76212006B; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 11:19:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z8pG9kj8YB4D; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 11:19:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gro.dd.org (host2.dlawren-3-gw.cust.sover.net [207.136.201.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA6F812002F; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 11:19:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gro.dd.org (Postfix, from userid 102) id 4FFD7BA6B3; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:19:07 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <24041.22571.306974.795849@gro.dd.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:19:07 -0500
From: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <157541704332.4708.13617952601376840902.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <157541704332.4708.13617952601376840902.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Qftc2A2FQ2WilMwqqsPIik8FC2w>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 19:19:11 -0000

Thank you for the review, Roman.

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker writes:
> * I agree with Mirja, Section 8 is more informative than what is
> alluded to the paragraph starting with “Several recursive resolvers
> …” in Section 3, and IMO is worth keeping.

I've already updated the GitHub copy in response to Mirja's review to
drop the request for the RFC Editor to remove the section.

> I struck me as odd to call out the operation practice of a
> particular vendor (Akamai).  We might want to check if this
> reference is ok – Ben?

I had also removed this reference from Section 3.  It was important
background material when I first introduced the draft, before the
technique became more widely available, but I agree that Akamai
specifically need ongoing highlighting there.

> * A few reference nits:
> - Section 6.  Per the mention to DNS-OARC, please provide a citation.

This was my own personal research on DITL data, not published as a
special report.  How should I cite?

> - Section 6 and 9.  The text references “during discussions in the
> IETF”.  What is that specifically – WG deliberation?

Yes, in dnsop (mostly at the mic, as I recall).  It used to say dnsop
specifically (version -05) but a couple of people had stronger
feelings than I that the language there should use the more expansive
IETF umbrella.  Me personally, my only strong feeling on the matter is
that, though someone else has suggested that it just be excluded
entirely, I want to see it included as historically relevant because
we did spend time on the EDNS option issue only to have it ultimately
be decided that it wasn't wanted.