Re: [DNSOP] New version of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis after WG last call

[Vladimír Čunát <[e-mail]>]

> We're looking for comments before Monday April 26th. 

I'm sorry.  Better slightly late than never, I suppose.  The whole text 
seems good to me, except for a small issue:

In step (6) of the algorithm it might better be noted that in case xNAME 
is in ANSWER, the RCODE is irrelevant.  Now the reading doesn't seem 
right e.g. if it returns a CNAME to an NXDOMAIN.

> * we use 1-1-1-3-3-.. label steps, which is not exactly what section 2.3 describes

I consider that part of the draft as just an example how the number of 
queries could be reduced, so I can't see any problem.

In the stub&forwarding section it might be worth noting the case of 
validating stub or forwarder.  There the final query does not suffice 
regardless of (non-)minimization, so the QNAME minimization approach can 
be "coupled" with a root-to-leaf direction of discovering the trust 
chain.  We've been using one simple approach from this class for years 
(as the only option for forwarding with validation).

--Vladimir | knot-resolver.cz