[DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-08: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-08: 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-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones/



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

Thank you to Catherine Meadows for the SECDIR review.

I support Murray Kucherawy DISCUSS position.

** Section 3.
Catalog consumers MUST ignore any RR in the catalog zone which is
   meaningless to or otherwise not supported by the implementation.

Can “meaningless” be more formally described?  Are there specific RR which
shouldn’t be in the catalog?

** Section 3.  Editorial.

The content of catalog zones may not be
   accessible from any recursive nameserver.

Can the intent of this be clarified?  Is it saying that the “contents of the
catalog zone may _not necessarily_ be accessible from _all or some_ recursive
nameservers”? or the “contents of the catalog zone _should not be/must not be_
accessible from any recursive nameserver”?