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

From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2016 03:00:55 -0700

Alexey Melnikov 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this is a useful document, but it is not entirely clear to me how
well content of this document will age with time.

Nits:

In section 5:

  This will increase the likelihood that spit-view unsigned answers are
found.

Should spit-view be split-view?

On page 14:
  For a stub resolver, problems with the name server MAY manifest
themselves as the following types of error conditions:

This is not an implementation choice, so use of MAY is not appropriate.
Change to "can" or the like.

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 14:09:29 -0700

> well content of this document will age with time.

That's the problem with any BCP, certainly.  But point taken.  We can
make it historic when the ubiquitous deployment of DNSSEC has been
achieved :-)

> Should spit-view be split-view?

Fixed in the current document.

> Change to "can" or the like.

Good catch.  Fixed.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Parsons