Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-05: 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-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for adding alg 8 in response to my discuss. I think you might want to do another editing pass just to check that the end result is fully consistent, e.g. I'm not sure if alg 8 should also be mentioned in section 1.3. The diff from -04 to -05 might also contain a few other such things, but I'm in an airport now so better I clear the discuss and leave such tidying to you. --- OLD COMMENTs below, I didn't check 'em vs. the latest version general, mostly 3.x.y: it'd have been nice to include a dig command line for each of these tests - that'd save the non-expert reader some time and allow easy scripting of most of this BCP. general: Why not say to include a test with a known, but not well-known, public key (or DS) to check if anyone on the path is fibbing? E.g. a tester could remember a few public keys and check that they've not changed in a new location. While that may only catch out a cheating real parent, did you consider including such a test? - 3.1.4: How is a "recently defined type" a reasonable thing to check for in a BCP? Seems odd anyway. - 6.1: what if there is no user? Why not recommend telling some network observatory? Aren't there some for DNSSEC? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
