Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-03: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work on this document. (This is a "let's talk" DISCUSS, which I don't expect to hold after the telechat) I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to add a step where IANA gets the help of the designated experts from each respective registry when elements are added to the DNS class or RR type registries, either by the experts creating the substatements to be added, or at least checking and confirming those created by IANA. A couple of minor comments below. Francesca ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ----- models along with standard management protocols such as NETCONF and RESTCONF can be effectively used in DNS operations, too. In fact, FP: Please expand NETCONF and RESTCONF on first use. 2. ----- FP: I believe it would be good to add a sentence in the terminology section stating that DNS terminology is used throughout the document, and point to RFC 8499 and/or RFC 1035. I think informatively would be enough. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
