Tiru, authors, and DNSOP members, I am afraid that without fixing the 2 issues below, the draft won't pass the IESG review. So, please quickly submit a revised I-D.
### Section 4 Per [1], why not a MUST (my preference but up to you) or providing the required guidance for the "SHOULD" in: ``` To avoid exceeding the maximum EDNS0 size [RFC9715] the generated JSON values *SHOULD* be as short as possible: short domain names, concise text in the values for the "j" and "o" names, and minified JSON (that is, without spaces or line breaks between JSON elements). ``` ### Section 5.3 Same comment about `DNS clients *SHOULD* handle both plaintext and structured content.` Regards -éric [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/ From: tirumal reddy <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, 9 June 2026 at 08:03 To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] WG <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Mohamed Boucadair <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Conclusion and request for action after AD review of draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error-20 The revised draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error/ reverts the language negotiation. -Tiru On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 at 11:20, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear authors, dear DNSOP WG, Thanks for your patience while I was away from the keyboard. After reading the multiple email threads about my request to add some human language negotiation, it appears that my request is both useless (human-readable text will never be displayed by browsers) and has no consensus within the WG. Dear authors, would you mind re-submitting a revised I-D that removes the language negotiation (i.e., sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 11.1). Regards -éric
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
