John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-epp-ttl-17: 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-regext-epp-ttl/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Murray’s DISCUSS position re the SHOULD in Section 3.1, although possibly for a slightly different motivation. I saw the reply to his DISCUSS to the effect that you’re saying the operator really had better configure a policy. As written that’s not clear from the text of the spec: “Servers SHOULD restrict the supported DNS record types in accordance with their own policy.” What I took away from that sentence, reading it without benefit of looking at the list discussion, was “a server should respect configured policy, unless it doesn’t feel like it, in which case whatever”. Evidently that’s not what you mean (good!). Perhaps something like, “Operators SHOULD configure server policy to restrict the supported DNS record types, in accordance with their own requirements.” _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
