On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Rob Austein wrote: > Please clearly state to the mailing list whether you support or oppose > this draft going to the IESG; if you support the draft going to the > IESG, please state whether you believe that it should be a BCP or an > Informational document.
I support the document going forward as Informational, but not without revision; the document is clearly unfinished, and as it is, it could only be published as Historic if that was possible :-) I believe 1) and 2) MUST be done prior to this document can be useful. We also SHOULD do at least parts of 3) prior to going forward, to increase the usefulness of this document. Major issues: 1) no references section, no security considerations, no acknowledgements, no IPR or copyrights section, the lines go beyond 72 characters which is the allowed maximum, etc. --- don't even get me started on editorial style :-) 2) The draft is short, but incomplete. After reading, you get a "huh.. then what?" -feeling. Suggested resolution: add a whole new section after 3.2, "4 - Conclusions" which should be at least 1.5 pages long, describing the actual implications of the findings in section 3.2. 3) It would not hurt to actually do some of that "Further work" right now, before publishing this document. E.g., doing more tracing (4.1 and 4.2), listing considerations for adding AAAA records to the zones (4.3). 4.4 appears to be clearly out of scope. Nits: - two section numbers "5" -- the former should actually be the appendix - s/Author's Address/Authors' Addresses/ -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
