John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-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-zoneversion/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this document, it seems useful and I found it well-written. I have one blocking concern about the choice of Informational vs. PS, and one minor nit. ### DISCUSS I agree with other reviewers that this appears to be most appropriately Proposed Standard and not Informational. Regrettably, the shepherd writeup doesn't explain the reason for this choice, so I am balloting DISCUSS. We could resolve this by changing the track, or by helping me understand why Informational is the right choice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Section 7.2 "assignments in the 1-245 values are to be made through Specification Required Review" I assume you mean "Specification Required review" (lowercase "review"). Sorry, I realize this is a very picky point, but by capitalizing "review" you make it appear as though you are referring to a policy named "Specification Required Review", which isn't a policy defined in RFC 8126. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
