Subject: [dns-privacy] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 20:21:01 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy-05: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-padding-policy/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(I might ballot "yes" on a more mature version of this as standards track or
BCP, should one be offered :-) )

Why is this experimental? What is the nature of the experiment? Even if it's
just to get more operational experience, it's worth saying that explicitly.

§2: There are a number of lower-case versions of normative keywords. Please
consider the boilerplate from RFC 8174.

§A.2: ' "Fixed Length Padding" MUST NOT be used except for experimental
applications.' This entire draft is experimental.