Subject: [DNSOP] Erik Kline's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 00:40:03 -0700

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-14: 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-extended-error/

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

Some non-mushroom-infection-related thoughts:

[ section 2 ]
* I'm insufficiently fluent in Unicode but is some reference here appropriate?
  Perhaps RFC 5198 (if not 3629)?

* Is some text of the form "EDE text may be null terminated but MUST NOT be
  assumed to be; the length MUST be derived from the OPTION-LENGTH field"
  worth including?

[ section 4.1 ]
? s/a EXTRA-TEXT/an EXTRA-TEXT/ perhaps

[ section 4.5 ]
* should DNS64 servers send "Forged Answer" EDEs with a NOERROR synthesized
  AAAA response?

[ section 4.22 ]
* "Not Supported" because something has been deprecated seems sufficiently
  specific that perhaps "Deprecated" or "No longer supported" would be more
  appropriate?