Hi there authors, Do you think that you can get a new version posted by tomorrow morning addressing these points? W
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 12:00 PM Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv-01: Discuss > > 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-obsolete-dlv/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This document needs to incorporate the boilerplate about normative keywords > from RFC 8174 as well as references to RFC 8174 and RFC 2119. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > A couple of suggestions since this is being written for posterity as a > consensus document of the IETF: > > s/not every validator actually implements DLV/not every validator actually > implemented DLV/ > > s/The authors are not aware of any such use of DLV./There are no known uses of > DLV for this./ > > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
