Re: [DNSOP] review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05

2016-10-27 Thread Matthew Pounsett
Following Suzanne's request to send text, I've put together a first draft of what I think the Remediating (renamed to Remediation) section should look like. In addition to this rewrite, I'd recommend moving it to be directly after the Testing section. # Remediation Name server operators are

Re: [DNSOP] review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05

2016-10-19 Thread Suzanne Woolf
Hi, Adding a few comments on this discussion, just one chair’s opinion: The underlying question in this exchange seems to be what advice should this document offer, and to whom? This is a Working Group document, which means the decision about what’s in and what’s out doesn’t rest with any

Re: [DNSOP] review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05

2016-10-18 Thread Matthew Pounsett
On 16 October 2016 at 21:15, Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message

Re: [DNSOP] review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05

2016-10-16 Thread Mark Andrews
In message

Re: [DNSOP] review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05

2016-10-16 Thread Matthew Pounsett
On 9 October 2016 at 21:32, Mark Andrews wrote: > > In message mail.gmail.com>, Matthew Pounsett writes: > > > > My first impression of this document is that it is still in need of some > > extreme editing – mostly for

Re: [DNSOP] review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05

2016-10-16 Thread Matthew Pounsett
On 10 October 2016 at 12:33, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 01:56:42AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > If the IETF was setting servers that went and checked DNS servers > > and informed the operators then the IETF would be in the business > > of

Re: [DNSOP] review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05

2016-10-10 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 01:56:42AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > If the IETF was setting servers that went and checked DNS servers > and informed the operators then the IETF would be in the business > of enforcing protocols. At this stage I don't see the IETF doing > that nor is this document

Re: [DNSOP] review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05

2016-10-10 Thread Mark Andrews
In message , william manning writes: > > Unfortunately we are no longer in the early days of the Internet AND the > IETF has no business in enforcing compliance with our protocol standards. > That's for the zone operators to

Re: [DNSOP] review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05

2016-10-10 Thread william manning
Unfortunately we are no longer in the early days of the Internet AND the IETF has no business in enforcing compliance with our protocol standards. That's for the zone operators to do. We are not the dns police. Even Paul mocapetris has called for more innovation in the dns space. We must not

Re: [DNSOP] review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05

2016-10-09 Thread Mark Andrews
In message , Matthew Pounsett writes: > > My first impression of this document is that it is still in need of some > extreme editing – mostly for grammar and syntax, but also for clarity and > readability. I've included many

[DNSOP] review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05

2016-09-26 Thread Matthew Pounsett
My first impression of this document is that it is still in need of some extreme editing – mostly for grammar and syntax, but also for clarity and readability. I've included many of the early problems I found in a list of nits at the end of this email, but at two and three errors per paragraph

[DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05.txt

2016-09-20 Thread Ondřej Surý
Hi dnsop, Tim has asked me for a review for TLD perspective, so here it is. A. The text in the RFC is very dense and very hard to read for me. Sometimes it feels like that the paragraphs are composed just of bullet points put together. I feel it needs a serious rewrite to improve