[regext] Charles Eckel's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension-10: (with COMMENT)

[Charles Eckel via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Charles Eckel has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension-10: 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-regext-rdap-ttl-extension/



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

Thanks to the authors and the working group for producing this clear and concise draft.

I have one comment I'd like the authors to consider.

Section 3.1 states:
  "The DNS record type mnemonics that appear as the property names in
   values objects MUST be in all capitals and MUST be registered with
   IANA in [IANA-RRTYPES].  TTL values MUST be unsigned integers in the
   range 0-2147483647 as per Section 8 of [RFC2181]."

How should a client deal with an invalid mnemonic or TTL value?

Section 3 states:
  "As per Section 2.1 of [RFC9083], clients which do not implement this
   specification SHOULD ignore the "ttl0_data" member."

Should clients similarly ignore one with ith an invalid mnemonic or TTL value?