Subject: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2016 15:51:08 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-04: Yes

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-nxdomain-cut/

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

One minor question: In section 2,  paragraph 3, which behavior is "this
behavior"? The continuing to use cached data under the cut, or the cached
non-existence itself?

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 10:16:19 +0200

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:51:08PM -0700,
 Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 25 lines which said:

> One minor question: In section 2, paragraph 3, which behavior is
> "this behavior"? The continuing to use cached data under the cut, or
> the cached non-existence itself?

Cached non-existence. It was clear before but the later addition of
paragraph 2 made it ambiguous. Thanks for noticing. I suggest to
replace paragraph 3 with:

Another exception is that a validating resolver MAY decide to
implement the "NXDOMAIN cut" behaviour (described in the first
paragraph of this section) only when the NXDOMAIN response has been
validated with DNSSEC.  See Section 8 for the rationale.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 07:51:45 -0500

> validated with DNSSEC.  See Section 8 for the rationale.

That works for me.

Thanks!

Ben.