Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: No Objection
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-attrleaf-fix/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Echoing comments from my review of draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf: I believe this document needs to also include RFC 6763 and RFC 4386; and that it should not include RFC 6733. Please see that review for details. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §1: > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this > document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Minor nit: please consider using the boilerplate from RFC 8174. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §§2.1 and 2.2: > An effort has been made to locate existing drafts that > do this, register the global underscored names, and list them in this > document. I think this text ("list them in this document") is left over from before this document was split from draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §2.3: This ties back to my discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf, and needs to be changed in a way that is consistent with however that issue is resolved. The current list of entries added by draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf strongly implies that the contents of https://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services were automatically imported into the namespace created by the Underscore Global Registry by the simple existence of RFC 7553. If that's the case, it seems that the following text in this document... > For any document that specifies the use of a "URI" RRset ...doesn't capture the real process here. As RFC 7553 will continue to exist into the future, it seems that the trigger is addition of new Enumservice entries, rather than the explicit specification of a new URI RRset. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §3.1: > The specification for a domain name under, which an SRV [RFC2782] > resource record appears, provides a template for use of underscored Nit: "...a domain name, under which..." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §3.2: As a very minor nit, the cited original text for RFC 6117 §4.1 kind of blends in with the text of this document. I would propose indenting it as was done with the rest of the quoted content in this section. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §3.3: > consumes all names beginning with the string "_ta-", when using the > NUL RR in the query. Nit: I believe the record type is called "NULL" rather than "NUL". _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
