Generalized DNS Notifications
draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-09

Yes

Paul Wouters
Éric Vyncke
(Warren Kumari)

No Objection

Deb Cooley
Erik Kline
Gunter Van de Velde
Jim Guichard
Mahesh Jethanandani
Orie Steele
Roman Danyliw
(John Scudder)
(Murray Kucherawy)
(Zaheduzzaman Sarker)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Paul Wouters
(was Discuss) Yes
Comment (2025-03-03 for -07) Sent 
Thanks for the discussion and changes. I have updated my ballot to 'Yes'
Éric Vyncke
(was Discuss) Yes
Comment (2025-03-11 for -08) Sent 
Thanks for the revised version. It addresses my previous blocking DISCUSS points (kept below for archive)

Email thread:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Zgc5Q9c2ZAPXi9pJC6zfl2Copoo/

# ALL BELOW IS FOR ARCHIVE ONLY

## DISCUSS (previously blocking)

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is just a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

### Section 4.1

Deeply sorry, but please use only the example domains in this document rather than `mie.jp`, which is not an example/documentation domain name if not mistaken.

### Section 4.3

Where is a 'valid NOTIFY' defined in `Upon receipt of a (potentially forwarded) valid NOTIFY(CDS) `? This is also related to section 2.1 where the behavior for unknown/unspecified RRtype/scheme is not defined.

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Intended status and section 7

The intended status is "proposed standard" for a rather important change (albeit if only for optimization, i.e., can fail) but there are no real live deployments yet. Did the WG consider using an experimental status first, and proposed standard after 1 year of experimentation ?

### Section 1.1

This section would be more palatable for non-DNS expert by adding some examples.

s/design requirements/design goals/ (as this is not real hard requirements)

### Section 2.3

All text is normative in a PS, but why not stressing the "should" by using a "SHOULD" in `message should be sent to the address and port listed` ? 

Please explain also why some DNS servers could bypass this "should".

### Section 3

s/for discovering that notification target./for discovering that notification target(s)./ ?

### Section 3.1

Suggest instantiating all fields (scheme/port/target) of the example as done in other examples.

Should there be an informative reference for `in ICANN's model` ?
Deb Cooley
No Objection
Erik Kline
No Objection
Gunter Van de Velde
No Objection
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Mahesh Jethanandani
No Objection
Orie Steele
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2025-02-27 for -06) Sent 
Thank you to Peter E. Yee for the GENART Review.

** Section 6.2.

   The expert review should validate that the RRtype and
   Scheme do not conflict with any existing allocations.

Is this the totality of the guidance for the expert reviewer, lack of duplication?

Is more detail required given the size of the code point space?
Warren Kumari Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -05) Unknown 

                            

                        
                    

                
            
        
            
                
            
                
            
                
            
                
            
                
            
                
            
                
            
                
                    

                        

                            John Scudder Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            (was Discuss)
                            No Objection
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                No Objection 
                                
                                    (2025-03-06 for -07)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Sent
                                    
                                
                            

                        

                        
                            

                                
Thanks for proposing guidance for the DE. Looks fine to me.

                            

                        
                    

                
            
                
                    

                        

                            Murray Kucherawy Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            
                            No Objection
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                No Objection 
                                
                                    (2025-03-05 for -07)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Sent
                                    
                                
                            

                        

                        
                            

                                
I support John's DISCUSS.  As presented, if the expert's only instructions are to make sure the registration request has the right fields populated, could we not just use First Come First Served here?

                            

                        
                    

                
            
                
                    

                        

                            Zaheduzzaman Sarker Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            
                            No Objection
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                No Objection 
                                
                                    (2025-03-04 for -07)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Not sent
                                    
                                
                            

                        

                        
                            

                                
Thanks for working on this specification and thanks to Wesley Eddy for his TSVART review.