Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-09: 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-rfc8624-bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I want to thank the authors for working on this document. Thanks also to Magnus for providing a robust SECDIR review. I have just one comment. Section 7.2, paragraph 10 > * Update the registration policy for the [DS-IANA] registry to match > the text describing update requirements above. > > * Mark values 128 - 252 as "Reserved" > > * Mark values 253 and 254 as "Reserved for Private Use" > > * Delete the (now superfluous) column "Status" from the registry > > Additionally, the registration policy for the [DS-IANA] registry > should match the text describing the requirements in this document. I think the two statements on "registration policy for the [DS-IANA] registry are confusing. Can we get rid of one of them? Possible DOWNREF from this Standards Track doc to [DS-IANA]. If so, the IESG needs to approve it. Possible DOWNREF from this Standards Track doc to [DNSKEY-IANA]. If so, the IESG needs to approve it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS: * http://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types "Abstract", paragraph 2 > the status (MUST, MAY, RECOMMENDED, etc) of any of the algorithms listed in > ^^^ In American English, abbreviations like "etc." require a period. "Abstract", paragraph 2 > tus (MUST, MAY, RECOMMENDED, etc) of any of the algorithms listed in RFC8624; > ^^^^^^^^^ Consider simply using "of" instead. Section 1.1, paragraph 4 > less of implementation status. In general it is expected that deployment of > ^^^^^^^ A comma is probably missing here. Section 1.2, paragraph 2 > thms to become used less and less over time. Once an algorithm has reached a > ^^^^^^^^^ Did you mean "overtime" (=time someone works beyond normal working hours)? Section 1.2, paragraph 3 > C2119] considers the term SHOULD equivalent to RECOMMENDED, and SHOULD NOT eq > ^^^^^^^^^^ The word "equivalent" is a noun or an adjective. A verb is missing or misspelled, or maybe a comma is missing. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
