Re: [DNSOP] One Chair's comments on draft-wessels-dns-zone-digest

["Wessels, Duane" <[e-mail]>]

> On Jul 28, 2018, at 2:30 AM, Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> (these are just my comments alone. So take it as such)

Thanks Tim,

I don't think these questions are already answered, so thank you for bringing them up.

> 
> The draft states in the Motivation section:
>  "The motivation and design of this protocol enhancement is tied to the DNS root zone [InterNIC]."
> 
> Your Design Overview states that this will work for zones that are "relatively stable and have infrequent updates".  I think some descriptive text about the type of zone this RR type attempts to address should be more clearly spelled out in your Abstract. 

Noted.

> 
> For the ZONEMD RR Type, where in the registry do the authors think it should go?  While some of that falls on the Expert Review process,  I think the document authors should capture their rationale in the document.  If the proposed RR Type is greater than 256 (which I think it does), it does not appear to require a Standards Track document, just Expert Review. 

Thanks. Is there a proper way to word such a request?  Looking at RFC6895 I'm not seeing a real difference in the way that ranges "<=127" and ">=256" are described.

> 
> I ask this since the document is listed as "Standards Track" and the document is narrowly scoped to focus on the Root  Zone. Additionally the document states: "This specification is OPTIONAL to implement by both publishers and consumers of zone file data."   This appears to be contradictory to me, but hopefully someone can illuminate me. 
> 
> I ask all of this because we have seen the working group start to push back on similarly scoped Proposed Standards (kskroll-sentinel).  
> 
> Though I do find it amusing that you use "The Camel" as the excuse for such a limited scope use case, even while requesting a Proposed Standard! 

I can accept that Standards Track is the wrong choice here.  Chalk it up to my naïveté.  I suppose Experimental would be more appropriate?

DW