Subject: Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-08

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:49:41 -0700

Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review result: Has Nits

I think would be ready if it passed IDnits. I found the document good
read and found no sinkholes in it. Pointing up two implementations was
also great.

The Proto Write-up seems not be up to date with what IDnits says e.g.,
when it comes to downrefs, which is what the IDnits complain about.

A couple of editorials:

Lines 118-119 says: "This takes this.." I would reword to something
like:
   "This document takes using NXDOMAIN information for more effective
caching further."

Lines 396 and 397 uses "is NOT" and "IS making". I would use lower
case here. No reason to use capitalized and still non-RFC2119
language.

Line 407 is would be great to indicate since which version of Unbound
support has been in place.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 01:30:10 +0900 (JST)

Thanks for the review

> From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
> Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
> Review result: Has Nits
> 

I will update the parts.

> support has been in place.

It is my edit mistake. Unbound does not implement "Aggressive use of
DNSSEC-validated Cache" now.

  See: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Iv1mxko-ZtUBkNWPZnnnwT9LR-A

# I implemented NSEC only version using Unbound three years ago as a patch.

--
Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <[email-masked]>