Dear Colleagues, On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 03:05:58PM +0200, Peter Koch wrote: > Dear WG, > > this initiates a Working Group Last Call for > > draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-00.txt
I have read this draft. I support it going forward for the intended status of BCP. Thanks to the author for a good document. After this most recent reading, I have a couple comments and questions that might be worth considering if there were any additional revisions to be done, but I would not advocate holding up the document for any of them. 1. Given the discussion of AS112, is there any value in including a reference to draft-jabley-as112-ops-00? (The obvious answer is "no", since that would introduce a dependency on what is currently an individual submission I-D. I just thought I'd ask for the record.) 2. In section 5, we have, "The author believes other methods would be more applicable for dealing with the excess / bogus traffic these generate." Is it worth adding some sort of reference to what methods those would be? It seems to raise a question, without providing guidance about where to look for the answer. Normally I don't know that I'd care, but in a BCP it strikes me that maybe such indications are important. 3. Nit: section 6. "This document recommends that IANA establish a registry of zones which require this default behaviour, the initial contents are above." This needs to be altered either to replace the comma with a semicolon or colon (depending on what one's views are on those); or, to have the end of the sentence changed to read "the initial contents of which are above". As it stands, it's a comma splice. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 416 646 3304 x4110 . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
