Subject: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:48:22 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-03: 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-maintain-ds/

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

I understand why most of the 2119 language appears in this draft, but the
SHOULDs in this text

   Users SHOULD keep in mind that re-establishing trust in delegation
   can be hard and takes a long time.  Before deciding to complete the
   rollover via an unsigned state, all options SHOULD be considered.
   
don't look like 2119 SHOULDs to me. 

I also note that there's a SHOULD in section 1.2, but 2119 terminology
isn't introduced until section 1.4 (easy enough to fix, by moving section
1.4 up, but).