Gunter Van de Velde has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis-10: 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-3901bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis-10 # Thank for writing this document and the work that went into documenting "DNS IPv6 Transport Operational Guidelines" # When looking at the diff [1] between the original rfc3901 and this new rfc3901bis it appears that 3901bis is a rather different document. Often the -bis is the original rfc with added content and findings. It often is not a complete rewrite. # I am not a DNS expert, nevertheless to a large degree i found this document written in a way i could mostly understand # Seeing [2] make me wonder if rough consensus was reached on all contested items, or if consensus was merely assumed due to silent voices. I am not versed enough in DNS to identify if my concern/observation is DISCUSS worthy on technicalities (hence my No_Objection), but it does leave me unconvinced on the rough consensus question. Gunter Van de Velde RTG Area Director [1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc3901&url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis-10&difftype=--html [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/fADwWfSyQrJSWIaSJob4A1w-AKs/ _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
