Subject: [DNSOP] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 06:22:58 -0700

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec-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-multi-provider-dnssec/

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

My lack of domain knowledge made this document hard for me to understand, but
given that this document as aimed at folks deploying DNS servers I don't really
see that as a problem.

One note is that the draft does use quite a few acronyms and has no terminology
section.  I'm not suggesting adding a terminology section but perhaps in the
introduction it would be worth adding a sentence to point readers to  RFC
8499/BCP 219?  This should probably also be listed as an informative dependency
(assuming that the terms used are formally defined elsewhere).

---

From: Shumon Huque <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 11:54:32 -0400

> given that this document as aimed at folks deploying DNS servers I don't

Thank you for your review Robert.

One note is that the draft does use quite a few acronyms and has no
> terminology

That's a good suggestion. We can certainly mention RF8499. Another thing
that might
be helpful is to go through the doc and, where it makes sense, expand some
of the
acronyms/abbreviations on first use.

Shumon Huque