[dnssd] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnssd-update-lease-08: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnssd-update-lease-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-dnssd-update-lease/



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

Thank you for writing this document. I'd also like to explicitly thank David
Lawrence for the comprehensive DNSDIR review
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dnssd-update-lease-07-dnsdir-lc-tale-2023-06-14/
), and for the followup during a natural disaster!

Like Paul Wouters I find the "the Update Lease interval should be at least 30
minutes, unless you really want it to be shorter" text to be suboptimal, but I
do understand what you are trying to say. How about something like: "By
default, the minimum Update Lease option SHOULD be no shorter than 1800 seconds
(30 minutes). If the requestor anticipates that the records being updated will
change sooner than 30 minutes it MAY choose a shorter interval. Requestors that
expect the updated records to be relatively static SHOULD request appropriately
longer leases." This says basically the same thing, but the "By default" clause
seems to make it less jarring. As this is a "No Objection" ballot, feel free to
ignore this suggestion...