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

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:09:31 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk 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 support Alissa's Discuss points (and in particular would think that this document
would be fine as Proposed Standard).

One other comment, in  Section 3.1:

Why is the new text only placing a "SHOULD be registered" requirement, as
opposed to MUST?

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 17:27:44 -0400

> Why is the new text only placing a "SHOULD be registered" requirement, as

It permits use-before-registration, which avoids registration as a 
barrier to adoption.

There is essentially no real risk incurred by this, noting that the 
semantics of SHOULD translates into "you really must do this, unless you 
are very knowledgeable and careful about why you aren't doing it right now.)

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net