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

[Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Francesca Palombini 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work on this document.

Before reading Alvaro's comment, I was going to bring up that the following
paragraph in Section 3.2 could be confusing for a reader who is aware of the
"Updates" RFC header.

   Note that this specification updates [RFC5155] by significantly
   decreasing the requirements originally specified in Section 10.3 of
   [RFC5155].  See the Security Considerations for arguments on how to
   handle responses with non-zero iteration count.

I see that Alvaro is questioning if this doc should actually update 5155, I
personally don't have a strong opinion, and don't think it is absolutely
necessary, although I am curious to hear if there has been discussion in the
community about it. In any case I think it would be good to rephrase the above
paragraph to avoid saying that this doc updates 5155 when it doesn't.

Thanks,
Francesca