Hi, I think this is a good, short draft and I support its publication. The assignment requirement level it imposes is more appropriate than the current requirement.
I do have some suggestions which range from minor to trivial: - Delete "some" from the first line of the Abstract. - To avoid the odd sounding rapid duplication of words, in the Abstract, replace the second occurrence of ". It also" with ", and". - Section 1: Replace the 2nd sentence/paragraph with "This document uses terms for IANA registry assignment policies as they are defined in [RFC8126]." or the like. (As I understand it, policies are not constrained to be those enumerated in RFC 8126 and, as long as you were careful to be clear about what you meant, you could use the terms in RFC 8126 with a different meaning in another document.) - Section 3: Suggest that the old and new RFC 8624 paragraphs be indented and/or enclosed in double quotes. - Section 4: Shouldn't "[this document]" be added to the References for the changed registries? - There are people who think that "assigned" is the best word for the assignment of a code point to a specific purpose and that "allocated" is more appropriate for allocating blocks of code points to a particular authority (as in allocated prefixes to regional internet registries) or to a particular policy (as in having a block of code points allocated to Standards Action assignment and another block allocated to FCFS). If you see any merit in that point of view, replace all occurrences of "allocated" with "assigned", I note that RFC 8126 makes no such distinction. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 11:29 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > All > > This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons > > Current versions of the draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons/ > > The Current Intended Status of this document is: Standards Track > > Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. > If this does not seem appropriate please speak out. > If someone feels the document is *not* ready for publication, please speak > out with your reasons. > > This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on: 18 > August 2021 > > thanks > tim > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
