Definition and Use of DNSSEC Negative Trust Anchors
draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-13

= Sec 2 =

"Technical personnel trained in the operation of DNS servers MUST
   confirm that a failure is due to misconfiguration"

s/MUST/must/ - seems odd to put a normative requirement on people to do something in people land

= Sec 4 =

"The lifetime MUST NOT exceed a week. "

Would be good to provide the motivation for where this number comes from.

-- General:

This is just an observation, since this is informational draft. I do not expect or suggest any action on it. (But if it had been standards or BCP track, I might have made it a discuss.) If I understand this correctly, it suggests that resolvers be configured to stop validating known broken names. This of course has the risk of circumventing the protection that a domain intended by using DNSSEC in the first place. The draft does discuss those risks. But I would have been happier to have seen something with a tone more along  "We know you are going to do this thing, and it's probably better than globally switching to a non-validating resolver-- so here's the risks, and here's some ways to minimize those risks" (which I think might have been good BCP material)  rather than "This is a good practice to work around broken DNSSEC configurations." 

-- section 1.2, last paragraph, last sentence:
Out of curiosity, has this been an issue?

-- 2, 2nd paragraph:
Can an operator be reasonably expected to be able to confirm that a domain is being operated by its rightful owner?

-- 2, 2nd to last paragraph:

Since the requirement to limit the time an NTA is used is a MUST, it seems like the ability to configure that time should also be a MUST.

-- 2, last paragraph:

Why is the requirement not to affect another branch weaker than the requirement not to affect other names higher up the same branch?

-- 4, first paragraph, last sentence:

This seems to favor erring on the side of keeping the NTA. I think security would suggest erring on the side of removing the NTA.

Editorial and Nits:

-- If you plan to use capitalized 2119 terms, please add the appropriate boilerplate and a 2119 reference.

-- section 4, first paragraph: "It is therefore RECOMMENDED that NTA implementors SHOULD"
redundant 2119 keywords (RECOMMENDED and SHOULD )

-- 7, paragraph 4, last sentence:
I suggest adding “At the time of this writing…”, and add additional text to remind people these may change over time.

-- 7:
This section  jumps into 2nd person. I don’t want to stand on formality, but it would be good to keep a consistent tone across the draft.

Thank you for a well written document. Many more thanks for using github and making commit comment changes there!!