Subject: [DNSOP] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 04:26:26 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: 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-dnsop-attrleaf-fix/

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

I don't quite understand why it was seen as beneficial by the group that this
doc has been split up, however, BCP does not seems adequate for this part of
the doc anymore (maybe PS instead as it updates some PS docs?).

Also, I think that the OLD/NEW style is not really necessary in most cases as
simply a sentence/reference to the registry is added.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 07:52:08 -0400

On 10/10/2018 7:26 AM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> doc has been split up,

Did you see the note I posted yesterday about this (in the context of 
having the base refer to the -fix, but including an explanation for the 
split)?

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: "Mirja Kühlewind (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:43:10 +0200

Hi Dave,

no I didn’t see that mail (quite a bit behind mail at the moment) but looked it up now. I have to say the argument of have a clean registry doc is not that convincing for me but it this fine. However re-consider the appropriate intended status for this doc!

Mirja

> Am 10.10.2018 um 13:52 schrieb Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>:
> 
> Did you see the note I posted yesterday about this (in the context of having the base refer to the -fix, but including an explanation for the split)?
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:08:29 -0400

On 10/10/2018 8:43 AM, "Mirja Kühlewind (IETF)" wrote:
> However re-consider the appropriate intended status for this doc!

I assume that is still something that the IESG resolves, independent of 
whatever is on the draft.

d/