Re: [DNSOP] Andrew Alston's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew,

Sorry for the delay.

Andrew Alston via Datatracker <[e-mail]> writes:

> I've been sitting trying to work out in my mind if a BCP document should be
> requesting code points - and if I should change the position from a no
> objection to a discuss - and the more I think about this - I feel that a
> discuss here is probably the right option.

My understanding is that the IESG resolved this DISCUSS during the IESG
meeting and that it's to remain a BCP.

> Having read through the document, I would also like to support Paul's discuss
> since the document does seem to update RFC5155.  I also would like to second
> what Murray said about it seeming a little strange to see a BCP document
> updating a standards track document.

The next version will indeed have an update clause.

> Finally - I was a little surprised to see IANA actions in a document
> entitled "guidance for...." - not sure if anyone else agrees with me,
> but it seems strange to see a BCP document requesting IANA actions

So the IANA action is asking for an EDE code point.  I believe this was
also resolved in the IESG teleconference too.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI