Subject: [DNSOP] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 08:30:44 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-09: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse/

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

One smallish, unimportant editorial comment:
In section 5, e.g.: "If the negative cache of the validating resolver has
sufficient
   information to validate the query, the resolver SHOULD use NSEC,
   NSEC3 and wildcard records aggressively."
it seems like the word "aggressive" has some meaning which was at least
not clear to me. Is there a difference in negative caching and aggressive
negative caching? If this word should provide any additional information
on what to do could you maybe further explain?

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 17:24:42 -0400

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse/

Yup, you are right - aggressively wasn't well defined.
I've just submitted a new version with:
"the resolver SHOULD use NSEC, NSEC3 and wildcard records
aggressively." -> "the resolver SHOULD use NSEC, NSEC3 and wildcard
records to synthesize answers as described in this document".

It also addresses the other IESG comments (basically remove parens
around a bit in the intro, and also explicitly ask the RFC Editor to
remove the bits in square brackets ""Ed note: Text inside square
brackets ([])"...

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf