Subject: comments on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-opt-in-08

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:10:38 -0500

Dear colleagues,

I have read draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-opt-in-08.  Here are my
comments.

I compared the methodology of the experiment to the methodology
outlined in draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-experiments-02.  I believe that
it is consistent.  Therefore, assuming the latter draft is the
community's view of how such experiments should proceed, I agree that
the opt-in draft should go forward as an experimental RFC.  Per the
Chairs' instructions, I have not evaluated the mechanism in the
experiment.

Nits
====

I have a question about section 4.1.4.  I wondered about the
reasoning for specifying RCODE=REFUSED as a SHOULD rather than a MUST
there, given the requirement that the processing mustn't happen.  (If
people think this is part of an evaluation of the mechanisms in the
experiment, I withdraw the question.)

Also, I note that RFC2137 has been obsolted by RFC3007.  I don't know
whether that matters for this document, though.

Best regards,
Andrew Sullivan

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
                                        +1 416 646 3304 x4110

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>