Subject: [DNSOP] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-20: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 23:16:33 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-20: 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-no-response-issue/

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

Thanks for a BCP on this.

I agree with Ben about the commas.

For what it’s worth, I disagree with Martin’s comment about “should” and such:
the document does not cite BCP 14, and I think that’s fine.

Some editorial stuff:

— Section 1 —

   While
   there is still a pool of servers that don't respond to EDNS requests,
   clients have no way to know if the lack of response is due to packet
   loss, or EDNS packets not being supported,

I tripped on the meaning of “while” here, and I suggest changing it to “As long
as there are still servers...”, so as to avoid the ambiguity.

— Section 2 —

   Some are caused directly from the non-compliant
   behaviour and others as a result of work-arounds

Make it “directly by”, not “from”.  And then “and others are as a result”.

   o  Widespread non-response to EDNS queries has lead to recursive

Make it “has led”.

      servers to have to decide whether to probe to see if it is the
      EDNS option or just EDNS that is causing the non response.

I would say, “the specific EDNS option or the use of EDNS in general”.