[DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with COMMENT)

"Spencer Dawkins" <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 07 January 2016 13:49 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160107134904.23824.11821.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 05:49:04 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/89I8-sYL3tfIXi47tK_CBaprqL8>
Cc: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: 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-dnsop-5966bis/



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

In this text:

   It is however noted that certain primary/secondary
   configurations with many busy zones might need to use more than one
   TCP connection for zone transfers for operational reasons.
   
could "for operational reasons" be a bit more precise? I think I know the
problem that's being solved, but I'm guessing, and other readers might
not know.

[DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-… Spencer Dawkins