The DNS Zone Version (ZONEVERSION) Option
draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-11

Yes

Paul Wouters
Warren Kumari
Éric Vyncke

No Objection

Erik Kline
Gunter Van de Velde
John Scudder
Murray Kucherawy
Orie Steele
Roman Danyliw

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

Paul Wouters
(was Discuss) Yes
Comment (2024-07-22 for -10) Sent 
Thanks for addressing my concerns. I have updated my Ballot to YES
Warren Kumari
Yes
Éric Vyncke
(was Discuss) Yes
Comment (2024-07-18 for -10) Sent 
Thanks for addressing my (trivial to fix) DISCUSS and most of my COMMENTS per:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/vdTfGCDtCDJmLDbSLDeyo5aZfs8/
Erik Kline
No Objection
Comment (2024-06-15 for -08) Not sent 
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-08
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### S1.1

* Why is Informational the right track for something that defines a new RR?

  The use of 2119 (without 8174) without any further text noting its lack
  of relevance for an Informational document might imply that this should
  be on some other track?

  Seems like it should be PS (or Exp)?

  I debated whether or not this was DISCUSS-worthy... perhaps others will
  feel differently.
Gunter Van de Velde
No Objection
John Scudder
(was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2024-08-05) Sent 
thanks!
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Comment (2024-06-19 for -08) Sent 
Thanks to John Levine for his ARTART review.

I support John's, Paul's, and Eric's DISCUSS positions.

Why the SHOULD NOT in Section 3.1?  If a client decides to include that option when talking to a non-authoritative server, what can happen?  Or put another way, why leave the client an out here?  Is there a legitimate reason to allow this?

I have a similar question about each of the SHOULDs in Section 3.2.  Why are we offering a choice here?  Why might I decide to deviate in each case?
Orie Steele
No Objection
Comment (2024-07-27) Not sent 
Thanks to John Levine for the ARTART Review.
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2024-06-18 for -08) Sent 
idnits reports:

  ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC5001]), which it
     shouldn't.  Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the
     documents in question.

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 8499
     (Obsoleted by RFC 9499)