Great, thanks! W
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 5:01 PM Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: > > No reason to do it now; it can wait. > > b > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:57 AM Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:42 AM Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I am handling this document as responsible AD because Warren, who would >>> otherwise do it, is <strike>irresponsible</strike> an author of the >>> document. >>> >>> I have only two comments, below, that are total nits, and I will request >>> last call as soon as I send this message. Nice work, as always, Warren and >>> Paul. >> >> >> Awesome, thank you. >> Please let me / us know if you would like a new version posted with the >> below comments addressed, or if you would prefer we wait until after LC ends. >> >> Thanks again, >> W >> >> >>> >>> Barry >>> >>> — Section 1.2 — >>> It’s a small thing, but please use the BCP 14 boilerplate from RFC 8174 >>> exactly (you left out “NOT RECOMMENDED” here). >>> >>> — Section 4 — >>> >>> As stated in Section 1, this design explicitly only allows the local >>> copy of the root zone information to be available only from resolvers >>> >>> Nit: you don’t need both “only”s. I suggest removing the first one. >>> >> -- >> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in >> the first place. >> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing >> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of >> pants. >> ---maf -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
