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

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 03:50:43PM -0800, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> * 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 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?

To some extent the operational practices of operators equate to
implementation status, for those that develop/run their own
implementations.  So I wasn't particularly struck by the text in Section 8
-- I was more struck by the text in Section 3 that left the "some way"
rather vague, and had opened an internal discussion about it (as-yet
unresolved).  But Adam's proposal to drop the vendor name entirely is
likely to be satisfactory.

-Ben