Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-13: No Objection
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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- First, this was really well done, and the historical context in particular is noteworthy. Thanks for putting this together. I support Roman's DISCUSS. I'm particularly interested in how we resolve the status question, as Benjamin has mentioned. Since BCP 97 is on the table, I'm already wondering what we do about updating an Internet Standard when the rare need for that arises. Is there any guidance about this? Is BCP the only way? It seems like it might be, but that also feels wrong. Then again, a new Proposed Standard theoretically can't update an Internet Standard either. I'm quite tempted to DISCUSS this point just so we get it right here, but for now I'll settle for talking about it with the IESG at some point in the near future. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
