Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bcp-05: Yes

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-dnsop-dnssec-bcp/



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bcp-05
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is short and contains a lot
of useful information.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points .

Special thanks to Tim Wicinski for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
WG consensus and justification of the intended status.

Please note that Nicolai Leymann is the DNS directorate reviewer (at my
request) and the review status is 'ready':
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bcp-05-dnsdir-telechat-leymann-2022-10-14/

Please note that Sheng Jiang is the Internet directorate reviewer (at my
request) and the review status is 'ready':
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bcp-05-intdir-telechat-jiang-2022-10-16/

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### BCP Status ?

In the light of Geoff Huston's
https://stats.labs.apnic.net/dnssec?s=Validating&d=Auto&w=30 , promoting DNSSEC
to BCP seems to be wishful thinking (alas :-( ...). No need to reply or to
restart a debate.

An informational document would probably be better suited.

### Section 2

`"DNSSEC" means the protocol initially defined in [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and
[RFC4035].` The use of 'initially' is weird for a third generation, suggest to
remove it.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments



_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to