Skip to main content

Aggressive Use of DNSSEC-Validated Cache
RFC 8198

Yes

(Terry Manderson)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Eric Rescorla)
(Kathleen Moriarty)

Recuse


Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Warren Kumari Recuse

Comment (2017-04-24 for -09)
I'm an author, recusing myself.

But if I weren't, I'd ballot "Awesome" :-)

(Adam Roach; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2017-05-23 for -09)
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

Yes (2017-05-23 for -09)
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

Yes (for -09)

                            

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-05-22 for -09)
Specially for Warren: "Awesome" :-)

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Eric Rescorla; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-05-22 for -09)
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

No Objection (2017-05-24 for -09)
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

No Objection (2017-05-23 for -09)
It would have been nice to use a AAAA record in the examples.