I guess I should respond to Tobais' email message, but given the growing number of addressed recipients in this thread, I'll be brief. (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/fADwWfSyQrJSWIaSJob4A1w-AKs/)
I undertook a DNS Directorate Review of this draft in late December last year, and in my review I indicated that I thought the draft was Not Ready. The review noted 2 minor nits and 12 Issues. (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dnsop-3901bis-09-dnsdir-lc-huston-2025-12-18/) I was reassigned the -10 version of the draft for a followup DNSDIR review and I noted in this second review that many of the issues raised in my previous review had been resolved, but I also noted that "a number of issues which have not been addressed and are repeated here, as they remain significant unresolved issues, in my opinion." There were 5 outstanding issues that I felt warranted a review judgement that the draft was still not ready. (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dnsop-3901bis-10-dnsdir- telechat-huston-2026-01-08/) I have reservations regarding the use of Best Current Practice for documents that do not describe what is understood to be current operational practice. The 5 issues noted in this review refer to the document advocating operational practices that appear to me to be outside what I understand to be current DNS practice. The authors have not asked me for any further clarification of these review comments, so I can assume that the comments are sufficiently clear. As to how the matters raised in these reviews are addressed in any subsequent iterations of the draft, its my understanding that is a matter for the document's authors, not the reviewer. thanks, Geoff
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
