[OPSAWG] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-12: (with COMMENT)

[Erik Kline via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-12: 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-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations/



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

# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-12
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### S3

* "ip6.arpa", not "ipv6.arpa"

  This is correct elsewhere in the doc, but this seems to have been missed.

### S3.2

* "recursive servers should cache data for at least..."

  ... while still respecting TTLs in the replies, yes?

### S6.4

* I suggest finding some text to point to that defines what a "geofenced"
  name is.  Right now this feels like the kind of thing that everyone
  "just knows what it means", but could use some formal description.

## Nits

### S3.1

* s/mapping/mappings/?

### S4.1

* s/inprotocol/in-protocol/

### S4.2

* "all those addresses DNS for the the name" ->
  "all those addresses in the DNS for the name"