Subject: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:44:36 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: Yes

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-dnsop-5966bis/

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

I'm balloting "yes" under the assumption this is intended as proposed
standard.

6.2.1.1:
Now that clients SHOULD pipeline, is it enough to say servers SHOULD
expect it? Seems like a MUST would be in order.

=== Editorial===
-1: "... TCP is henceforth a REQUIRED ..."
Since the normative language is strengthened in section 5, the REQUIRED
seems redundant here. I'd suggest stating this without the 2119 keyword.

- 5, 2nd to last paragraph:
I concur with Barry on the unclear antecedent of "It".

---

From: sara <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:56:49 +0000

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 21:44, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Yes, this does make more sense here. I’ve checked with most of the other authors and they agree. Thanks for spotting this.

> seems redundant here. I'd suggest stating this without the 2119 keyword.

This mimics exactly what was done in the original RFC5966 to state the main point of the document early on. I would argue for leaving the language as explicit (even if redundant) rather than make it vaguer… 

> I concur with Barry on the unclear antecedent of "It”.

Agreed - will fix.

Sara.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 08:53:51 -0600

On 7 Jan 2016, at 6:56, sara wrote:

> This mimics exactly what was done in the original RFC5966 to state the 
> main point of the document early on. I would argue for leaving the 
> language as explicit (even if redundant) rather than make it vaguer…

It is not critical either way, but IIRC section 5 added more (and 
stronger) normative language than was in 5966, right? So the REQUIRED in 
section 5 is less needed now.