Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error-24: No Objection
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-structured-dns-error/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for your edits to address my previous DISCUSS ballot. A few of my comments still stand, but not enough to block the document. ### Section 4, paragraph 5 ``` Contact URIs conveyed in the "c" field MUST use URI schemes registered in Section 11.3. ``` I continue to think it's a bit odd to create a registry of entries that are already in another registry, and where client behavior is entirely gated on what values they support in the field or not. ### Section 4, paragraph 26 Are clients required to enforce these requirements on names they don't recognize? If so, what behavior is a client required to take when processing a non-compliant error response? If not, why are these normative requirements? The additional text makes clear that these requirements are intended to apply to future specifications, but there's no enforcement mechanism or client behavior specified here. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
