Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-06: 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-compact-denial-of-existence/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Just a few comments: Since NODATA responses are generated for non-existent names Should this not also say "not covered by a wildcard" ? I guess it depends on whether you consider "non-existent names" to mean "not covered by a wildcard". I think it wouldn't hurt to make this explicit in the text. proves the delegation is unsigned by the absense of the DS bit. The absence is of the DS RRtype, signified by a bit in the Type Bitmaps field. This brings the writing more in line with earlier mentions of the Type Bitmaps content. (also absense -> absence ?) Last, the Appendix A and B look very similar to what we normally call Implementation Status (RFC 7942). Those sections are usually removed from the document before publication (to avoid them being used sort of as advertisement, and for quickly becoming outdated). I'm a bit on the fence here on whether it would align more with RFC 7942 to remove these from the final document. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
