Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is just a process discuss: 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? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
