Subject: [DNSOP] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 11:26:19 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: 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/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-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- Agree with Terry's DISCUSS.

- Sec. 2: The last paragraph here isn't really about "goals" and seems
like it belongs more appropriately in Sec 3.

- Sec 6.1: I thought recently gathered data has been pointing to the
futility of popping up security warnings (e.g.,
http://neurosecurity.byu.edu/media/Anderson_et_al._CHI_2015.pdf). Does it
really make sense to recommend warning users in a BCP? What are users
expected to do as a result? Is there any evidence about the proportion of
users who even know what DNSSEC is?