Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures-07: 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/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-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, Thanks for working on this document - I'm not a DNS expert but it looks like good advice. A couple of minor comments for your consideration: (1) p 2, sec 1. Introduction This document updates [RFC2308] to require negative caching of DNS resolution failures and provides additional examples of resolution failures. Perhaps "caching of all DNS resolution failures"? (2) p 2, sec 1.1. Motivation RFC Editor: We'd like your thoughts on moving the Motivation and Related Work sections to appendices. Is that a preferred style? Not the RFC editor, but I would keep the motivation here, as a subsection of the introduction. Regards, Rob _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
