On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 04:12:38PM -0500, Rose, Scott W. <scott.r...@nist.gov> wrote a message of 36 lines which said:
> 1. Section 1. Introduction and background > s/etc/etc. (Depends on style guide used I guess) Yes. Deferred to when the RFC Editor will look at it. > 2. Section 3 > I would prefer the sentence on legal issues dropped. It may > decrease the usefulness of the logging, but maybe not the > obligation to do it). Sentence completely rewritten (I still believe it is useful to note that, when discussing the pros and the cons, people remember that there are not only technical arguments.) New version: <t>DNS administrators are reminded that the data on DNS requests that they store may have legal consequences, depending on your jurisdiction (check with your local lawyer).</t> > 3. Section 3, paragraph 5 > "Other strange and illegal practices..." Perhaps illegal is > too strong of a word - replace with "unsafe"? Replaced with non-conformant. I remember there was a discussion (in this WG), about the proper word to describe anti-RFC behaviour (not "illegal" since RFCs are not law). I'll search for it. https://github.com/bortzmeyer/my-IETF-work/commit/6a3305d3c889a1deb3917fba1c5a213bd8ce951f _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
