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

[Dave Lawrence <[e-mail]>]

Thank you very much for your review, Mirja.

> 1) It seems to me that this sentence in section 7 should/could
> actually be phrased as a normative requirement in this document: "it
> is not necessary that every client request needs to trigger a new
> lookup flow in the presence of stale data, [...]"

I agree.  We had a lot of back-and-forth in the working group about
normative language in this document, and but for the Standards Action
section.  I'm personally in support of more of it, but ended up having
to strip out existing instances of normative language based on working
group consensus.

> 2) I find the Implementation Status section (8) actually quite
> interesting for this document and maybe it should be considered to
> keep it in the document for final publication.

I personally am in favor of this, not just for this document but for
all RFCs.   RFC 6982 recommends that the section be removed, but I'd
be happy to help evolve that recommendation.