[DNSOP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 30 September 2015 23:27 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150930232724.19135.27100.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:27:24 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/LmxWSSsDcjVZ1FPpHHUO29S8bhg>
Cc: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback.shepherd@ietf.org
Subject: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: No Objection

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-root-loopback/



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

After thinking about the comments from Joel and Paul, I'm demoting the
IPR question to a comment, since I think it's up to the Joel and the
working group to decide if there should be any delay to work this out:

The IPR disclosure at http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2539/ says that due
to the early state of the draft, license terms will be provided later.
Obviously the draft is beyond early stages now. Does it make sense to ask
for an update before progressing this draft?

-- section 1, paragraph 7: "Thus, recursive resolver software such as
BIND will not need to add
   much new functionality, but recursive resolver software such as
   Unbound will need to be able to talk to an authoritative server"

It might be useful to mention the properties of BIND and Unbound that
make the difference.

-- 1, paragraph 8: "Because of the significant operational risks
described in this
   document, distributions of recursive DNS servers MUST NOT include
   configuration for the design described here."

This made my day!

[DNSOP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf… Ben Campbell