Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: Yes
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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for writing a clear document that describes the approach and the potential pitfalls. As I noted earlier, I think this approach is untenable given the fragility it will introduce. Any chance we will see a management item in the near future marking the resulting RFC Obsolete? -- old comments below -- I can't decide if I should ballot Yes because this document does a good job of describing how to deploy this approach or Abstain because the fragility introduced in this approach appears to be untenable. In the meantime, can someone explain why this document is stating a requirement to deploy this approach with IPv4 only? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
