[DNSOP] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-08: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-08: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance/



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

I support Paul's DISCUSS; basically, "What Roman said".  Also, for possible
IESG conversation: Is it weird at all that a BCP is updating a Standards Track
document?

A very minor point: I don't think you need Section 2.1.

I'm pretty sure the reference to RFC 8174 needs to be normative; it's part of
the same BCP as RFC 2119, which you do already have as normative.

In Section 2.2:

OLD:
  "... whether or not that NSEC3 record provides proof of non-existence or not."
NEW:
  "... whether that NSEC3 record provides proof of non-existence."

Regarding the SHOULD in Section 3.2, what other action might a resolver
legitimately return, and why?

Same question for the SHOULD in Section 4.

Why wasn't Appendix E done in the form of BCP 205?  Is the intent to keep it
when the draft is published as an RFC?