Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC

Hi,

I think this is a good, short draft and I support its publication. The
assignment requirement level it imposes is more appropriate than the
current requirement.

I do have some suggestions which range from minor to trivial:

   - Delete "some" from the first line of the Abstract.
   - To avoid the odd sounding rapid duplication of words, in the Abstract,
   replace the second occurrence of ". It also" with ", and".
   - Section 1: Replace the 2nd sentence/paragraph with "This document uses
   terms for IANA registry assignment policies as they are defined in
   [RFC8126]." or the like. (As I understand it, policies are not constrained
   to be those enumerated in RFC 8126 and, as long as you were careful to be
   clear about what you meant, you could use the terms in RFC 8126 with a
   different meaning in another document.)
   - Section 3: Suggest that the old and new RFC 8624 paragraphs be
   indented and/or enclosed in double quotes.
   - Section 4: Shouldn't "[this document]" be added to the References for
   the changed registries?
   - There are people who think that "assigned" is the best word for the
   assignment of a code point to a specific purpose and that "allocated" is
   more appropriate for allocating blocks of code points to a particular
   authority (as in allocated prefixes to regional internet registries) or to
   a particular policy (as in having a block of code points allocated to
   Standards Action assignment and another block allocated to FCFS). If you
   see any merit in that point of view, replace all occurrences of "allocated"
   with "assigned", I note that RFC 8126 makes no such distinction.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 11:29 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> All
>
> This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons
>
> Current versions of the draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons/
>
> The Current Intended Status of this document is: Standards Track
>
> Please review the draft and offer relevant comments.
> If this does not seem appropriate please speak out.
> If someone feels the document is *not* ready for publication, please speak
> out with your reasons.
>
> This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on:  18
> August 2021
>
> thanks
> tim
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>