I'll take a stab at responding to these since it's the end of the call for comments. On Dec 23, 2016, at 7:14 AM, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:
* First, I think it makes sense to make an "executive summary" at the top of the document. I passed out a few times since I was holding my breath to know the actual recommendations, which I didn't find until near the bottom of page 17, and even then not really highlighted in any way. ;)
RSSAC and SSAC documents don't seem to put the recommendations at the top, always at the end. I guess the folks reading them have mostly gotten used to that.
* In this paragraph:
"However, given today’s Internet environment, the RSSAC would like to study the naming scheme used for individual root servers and consider whether changes need to be made."
We should change "would like to study" to "has studied" and "consider" to "considered". The work is done, not pending.
Agree, now that this is ready for publication.
* Minor nit... some of the RFC references are a lovely shade of blue, but not all. Probably these should all be made into clickable links and all presumably blue, or all left as formal black.
Agree.
* I think that this paragraph needs some tweaking:
"In order to maintain compatibility with current resolvers, this list does not include any proposal that would cause the response to a priming query that includes all 13 of the current root servers’ IPv4 addresses to be larger than 512 bytes."
I just did a quick check, and at least I, J, and L currently sometimes return answers that do not include 13 root server IPv4 addresses in their response to 512-byte queries. On example is where the name servers are returned sorted, with A followed by AAAA records.
Actually some root servers return only IPv6 glue if queried without EDNS using IPv6. I guess the assumption is that "current resolvers" don't run IPv6 so are not included in this description?
I guess what is really meant is something like, "to be conservative, we want to return a response that fits all 13 of the current root servers' IPv4 addresses in 512 bytes for resolvers that do not use EDNS or IPv6"?
Disagree. The sentence as it stands is correct: we want a root server operator that wants to send all 13 of the current root servers’ IPv4 addresses to be able to do so in less than 512 bytes. If a root server operator wants to send a different set of addresses, they can.
* "scheme.." should be "scheme.", or possibly "scheme...." ;)
Sure.
* I'm not sure how to take this paragraph:
"However, different name server implementations differ on whether or not they return RRSIG information for the name server names within the shared TLD."
It reads like a limitation, whereas since there are only 13 root server operators they could co-ordinate and make sure that the software they run is consistent if this is important (or varies in behavior if that is important).
We are not claiming that the behavior is important, so it is not a limitation that we know of. --Paul Hoffman