Subject: [DNSOP] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 22:31:53 -0800

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-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-server-cookies/

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

I learned the word "gallimaufry" from the Introduction.

I think Section 1.1 is unnecessary, given it mostly re-states the Table of
Contents.

In Section 3 there's a line that says "Client-Cookie = 64 bits of entropy"
which is both (a) not a sentence, and (b) the same as something said in the
first paragraph of this section.  I think it can be removed.

The layout of Section 7 is odd.  It looks like several line breaks got eaten.

Also in Section 7, you're creating a registry with Expert Review, but there's
no particular guidance offered to the Designated Expert once one is assigned,
as suggested by RFC 8126.  Are we all OK with that?  You might advise, for
example, that the registration of a new Method really should have a
specification someplace.