I'm a big fan of this. These comments are meant to be constructive, and with the goal of improving the draft quality and/or quality of the underlying protocol.
And, of course, I speak only for myself. In no particular order: - In section 3, it might be good to add a paragraph about the implications for HAMMER. Specifically, in addition to pre-fetching records that would otherwise expire, it is probably worth probing for the introduction of zone cuts where none previously existed (i.e. confirm their continued absence, or discover them.) - Another comment for Section 4 (other advantages), it may be worth mentioning improved look-up performance for TLD operators, which offsets the loss of query data. A 2-label QNAME query is optimal for finding the delegation owner name in a delegation-only TLD. - Another thing to possibly call out is the behavior of some name servers when the QNAME is an Empty Non-Terminal, e.g. a non-zone-cut with a child, but no RRs at the owner name. I seem to recall something along those lines but don't recall details, e.g. which software, version, etc., has this issue. Hope this is helpful. Brian Dickson
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
