Andrew Alston has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-08: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-nsec3-guidance/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I've been sitting trying to work out in my mind if a BCP document should be requesting code points - and if I should change the position from a no objection to a discuss - and the more I think about this - I feel that a discuss here is probably the right option. I'd like to discuss if both the sections of the document that utilize normative language and require additional code points aren't better suited to a standards track document. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the work put into this document. Having read through the document, I would also like to support Paul's discuss since the document does seem to update RFC5155. I also would like to second what Murray said about it seeming a little strange to see a BCP document updating a standards track document. Finally - I was a little surprised to see IANA actions in a document entitled "guidance for...." - not sure if anyone else agrees with me, but it seems strange to see a BCP document requesting IANA actions _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
