Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bcp-05: 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/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-dnssec-bcp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for working on this specification. I think a BCP would be helpful. I have two minor comments - - Section 1: if we can elaborate on "modern DNSSEC" that would be more useful to understand the characteristic of the modern DNSSEC rather just calling it modern. - Section 1.2: it says - "reading the RFCs should also include looking for the related errata", may be it better to clarify if we mean all the erratas with all the states or just verified ones. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
