Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures-07: 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/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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for working on this specification. My review does yield any TSV related issues. I have following minor comments that I believe will improve the document quality when addressed - # While this specification updates RFC2308, RFC4038 and RFC4697, the Introduction section only mentions RFC2308. Would be good to give emphasis on all the updates. # Regarding Motivation section, I like the motivation section up front and understanding of the problem to solve before going into solution description. So I would like to keep this section where it is. # Section 2 says - If any one of the available servers provides a useful response, then it is not considered a resolution failure. with that I am not sure why responses in section 2.1 and 2.2 are qualified as useful responses. Please add some clarification texts in those sections. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
