Aggressive Use of DNSSEC-Validated Cache
RFC 8198
Yes
No Objection
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
Warren Kumari Recuse
I'm an author, recusing myself. But if I weren't, I'd ballot "Awesome" :-)
(Adam Roach; former steering group member) Yes
This seems like a good change; the description is well written and easy to understand; and the logic seems sounds and well-explained. The abstract should remove the parentheses from the second paragraph, as they form an important (as opposed to incidental) part of the description of the update.
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) Yes
I agree with Adam's comment about the parenthetical phrasing in the abstract. I see the intent for text in square brackets to be removed. Did I miss instructions to the RFC Editor to that effect? Most likely they will figure it out, but explicit instructions would be better.
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) Yes
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
Specially for Warren: "Awesome" :-)
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Eric Rescorla; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
One smallish, unimportant editorial comment: In section 5, e.g.: "If the negative cache of the validating resolver has sufficient information to validate the query, the resolver SHOULD use NSEC, NSEC3 and wildcard records aggressively." it seems like the word "aggressive" has some meaning which was at least not clear to me. Is there a difference in negative caching and aggressive negative caching? If this word should provide any additional information on what to do could you maybe further explain?
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
I should ballot Discuss, so we can all tell Warren how awesome this draft is on the telechat itself. More seriously, I'm pretty sure I was Gen-ART reviewer for the RFC being updated, and this update seems very much like the right thing to do.
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection
It would have been nice to use a AAAA record in the examples.