Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-14: 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-extended-error/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bigger things: The introduction is great, but the last paragraph drifts into normative language, which feels weird in an introduction. I suggest moving that stuff off to a later section, even a new one. Section 1.1 should use the more modern form of BCP 14. I may need more DNS clue, but I'm wondering why any of the SHOULDs in the first paragraph of Section 3 are not MUSTs, or alternatively why I would ever deviate from what they're saying. Lesser things: Section 1: * "... and so the stub resolvers only ..." -- s/resolvers/resolver's/ * "... is returned again or the next ..." -- add a comma after "again" * "... described in this document and can be used ..." -- remove "and" Section 4.4: * "... unable to resolve answer within ..." -- "an answer" or "the answer" Section 4.9: * "... validation, but but no ..." -- s/but but/but/ Section 4.16: * "... operator of the server being directly talked to." -- "being directly queried", perhaps? Section 4.25: * "An authoritative server that cannot answer ..." -- remove "that", perhaps? And with that, I'm off to check out Infected Mushroom. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
