Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: 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-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - I support Terry's discuss. - 1.2, 2nd paragraph: Is "full non-support" effectively different from "non-support" in this context? Do we have reason to expect the github project to be maintained for the life of the RFC? - 3.1.1 et. al. : Do we have reason to believe the dnssec-tools.org domain will be maintained for the life of the RFC? - 5: The first paragraph seems to say that the document does not accomplish it’s goal. Is that really the intent? (And doesn't the document at least do some of that?) "... we can determine what MUST be done in order..." Spurious 2119 MUST "short-circuit any unnecessary fallback attempts.": Does "short circuit" mean the same as "avoid" in this context? "problems with the name server MAY manifest": Spurious 2119 "MAY" - 5.1, "It MAY be possible...": Spurious 2119 "MAY" -5.1.2: s/real/really - 6: "A newly established network connection MAY change state...": Spurious 2119 "MAY" -8: Seems like there could be more to say about the potential consequences about the “fail or proceed without security” decision in 6 and 6.1. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
