Subject: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 22:48:22 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-09: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I find myself curious about both SHOULDs in 

   Resolver software SHOULD treat the response to the priming query as a
   normal DNS response, just as it would use any other data fed to its
   cache.  Resolver software SHOULD NOT expect exactly 13 NS RRs.
   
Do you think these SHOULDs (especially the first one) are required for
interoperation? I'm wondering (1) why they aren't MUSTs, and (2) why RFC
2119 language is actually needed at all. If they are RFC 2119 SHOULDs,
what happens if the resolver software violates them?