[DNSOP] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 10 October 2018 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03376130EE3; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 07:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix@ietf.org, Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, benno@NLnetLabs.nl, dnsop@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.86.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153918317300.5920.8885858667343705361.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 07:52:53 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/hFiZLfWZFOOZ83zmTXanIMMQcPo>
Subject: [DNSOP] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:52:53 -0000

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04: Discuss

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:


I think this document needs to state explicitly which updates apply to which
existing RFCs. That is, I would expect to see in sections 2.1,  2.2, and 2.3
the list of which documents are updated by each section. I realize this can be
intuited, but typically for avoidance of doubt authors specify precisely which
updates apply to which documents. This will also clear up the unused references
that idnits is pointing out.

I would also like to  understand why this is going for BCP. There is
effectively no shepherd write-up for this draft (it's just a copy of the
write-up for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf and talks about this document as the
"companion" document) so there is no explanation there. One effect of this
being BCP is that it adds a huge number of documents to the downref registry.
It's not clear to me that the upside of that is bigger than the downside.


Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3: I don't understand why the paragraphs "If a public
specification that defines ... MUST be entered into this registry, if it is not
already registered" are needed, since the same normative requirement is
generically stated in draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf.