Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09: 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-rfc8499bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for working on this documentation. I have one point that I would like to discuss to clarify the definition understanding, I hope addressing this would improve this document. It defines- Full resolver: This term is used in [RFC1035], but it is not defined there. RFC 1123 defines a "full-service resolver" that may or may not be what was intended by "full resolver" in [RFC1035]. This term is not properly defined in any RFC. While section 6 starts with - "This section defines the terms used for the systems that act as DNS clients, DNS servers, or both. ". It does not really define "Full resolver". I am not sure what I am supposed to do with the definition (more like description) provided here. This should be clarified. what was the consideration here? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In the spirit of defining the "global DNS" and "private DNS", the security section should perhaps remove the use of "the DNS" and use "global DNS" and "private DNS" instead. A very minor comment. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
