Pete, thanks for your review. Shumon, thanks for your response. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On Mar 31, 2020, at 6:44 PM, Shumon Huque <shu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 6:10 PM Pete Resnick via Datatracker > <nore...@ietf.org <mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote: > Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec-04 > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review Date: 2020-03-31 > Summary: Ready. > > Good to go. A straightforward document easy enough for this non-expert to get. > Thanks to the shepherd for a straightforward writeup; it made the review even > easier. > > Hi Pete, > > Thanks for your review. > > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Just two comments, neither of them should stop progress on the document in any > way: > > 1. I could see this document being a BCP, since the advice in here seems > pretty > prescriptive. I think it will still be perfectly useful as an Informational > document, but it does seem to have important operational advice. > > When we first brought this work to DNSOP, I actually asked the same question. > > The general consensus at that time was that since no-one had yet deployed > these models in production, it was probably premature to portray it as a BCP > (since the practice did not yet exist :-). > > By now, we have had a number of prototype/test implementations, a > production implementation by one major DNS vendor, as well 2 others in > the pipeline. So there is more confidence that these models will be > successfully > deployed. > > The easiest course of action in my view is to push it out as Informational, > and > as more operational experience is gained in the field, produce an updated > document as a BCP. > > 2. In section 3, it occurs to me that another thing you might add to the > problem list is the issue of some servers caching BAD Data. Paul Hoffman was > nice enough to point me to section 4.7 of RFC 4035. Perhaps a reference to > there from this document would be useful. > > I'm pondering a bit more about what to do with this suggestion. I agree it > might > be worth mentioning. Although I'm not sure there is any new behavior w.r.t. > these > models that needs to be highlighted. > > Again, take them for what they're worth. If you decide not to do either, I > feel > the document could go forward as-is without a problem. > > Thanks! > Shumon Huque > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > gen-...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
