Moving DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) to Historic Status

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

Warren Kumari Yes

(Ignas Bagdonas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Alissa Cooper (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2019-10-31)
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENT.

Roman Danyliw No Objection

Comment (2019-10-29 for -01)
** Section 1.  Is there a reference that can be cited to support the metric that 1389 of 1531 TLDs have secure delegation?

** Editorial.  From idnits: The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords.  
     RFC 2119 keyword, line 117: '...he DLV mechanism SHOULD NOT be impleme...'

** Editorial -- The Table of Contents doesn’t appear to have generated the Section-to-Page Number mapping

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

Comment (2019-10-29 for -01)
Section 1

It's probably best to consistently use the past tense here.

Section 3

   Historic status.  This is a clear signal to implementers that the DLV
   resource record and the DLV mechanism SHOULD NOT be implemented or

I suppose the debate about "SHOULD NOT" vs. "MUST NOT" has already happened
and does not need to be reopened, so I'll just leave it at that.

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Adam Roach) No Objection

Martin Vigoureux No Objection

Éric Vyncke No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection