Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-08: 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-zoneversion/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to John Levine for his ARTART review. I support John's, Paul's, and Eric's DISCUSS positions. Why the SHOULD NOT in Section 3.1? If a client decides to include that option when talking to a non-authoritative server, what can happen? Or put another way, why leave the client an out here? Is there a legitimate reason to allow this? I have a similar question about each of the SHOULDs in Section 3.2. Why are we offering a choice here? Why might I decide to deviate in each case? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
