Re: [dns-privacy] Murray Kucherawy's Yes on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-12: (with COMMENT)

[Sara Dickinson <[e-mail]>]

> On 8 Jul 2020, at 08:45, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-12: 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-dprive-bcp-op/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ———————————————————————————————————

Hi Murray, 

Thanks for the review. 

> 
> I suggest getting rid of use of BCP 14 entirely.  There are only two SHOULDs in
> the whole thing, and I don't think you need them.

This point has been discussed a few times - the WG considered a few alternatives and this was what eventually got consensus. We also added new text in the -12 version (suggested by Ben Kudak) at the end of section 5 to clarify the point that there are normative requirements here:  “The rest of this document does not use normative language but instead refers only to the three differing classes of action which correspond to the three named levels of compliance stated above.  However, compliance (to the indicated level) remains a normative requirement.” If you want to suggest a further update to this text, please do.

> 
> I also suggest reviewing Barry's editorial comments, because I observed the
> same issues for things like "DNS-over-DTLS" and "DNS-over-TLS", for example.

Thanks - I missed a few. Should all be fixed now in -13.

Sara.