Charles Eckel has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to the authors and the working group for producing this clear and concise draft. I have one comment I'd like the authors to consider. Section 3.1 states: "The DNS record type mnemonics that appear as the property names in values objects MUST be in all capitals and MUST be registered with IANA in [IANA-RRTYPES]. TTL values MUST be unsigned integers in the range 0-2147483647 as per Section 8 of [RFC2181]." How should a client deal with an invalid mnemonic or TTL value? Section 3 states: "As per Section 2.1 of [RFC9083], clients which do not implement this specification SHOULD ignore the "ttl0_data" member." Should clients similarly ignore one with ith an invalid mnemonic or TTL value? _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
