Hi Peter, Please see inline [GF]. Regards, Giuseppe -----Original Message----- From: Peter Thomassen <peter=40desec.io@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 10:23 AM To: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@xxxxxxxxxx>; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx Cc: dnsop@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-05 Hi Giuseppe, Thanks for your follow-up! On 2/10/25 10:03, Giuseppe Fioccola wrote: >> >From an OPSDIR point of view, I noticed that some references about >> >the >> deployment are provided in section 7 on "Implementation Status". >> Since this section is supposed to be removed before publication, I >> would rather keep it and summarize the main results of the >> implementation especially with regards to interoperability and backwards compatibility aspects. > > To prevent implementation-specific text from not aging well, we could replace Section 7 with something like: > > At least on open source implementation already exist and at least one > TLD registry is currently implementing this as an upcoming service. > > However, it's unclear where that text could live (it hardly justifies its own section), or whether it would even address your concern. The authors would appreciate your suggestion. > > [GF]: It is also ok to add a sentence as you proposed, maybe in the introduction. As a reader, I would be interested to know essentially if the implementation raised any issue or not. Aha, now we understand better. Implementation efforts so far have not surfaced any issues. I think this is mostly true of IETF standards, as if issues had appeared during standardization, that feedback would have made it into further development of the protocol. Unless you feel strongly, the authors would therefore prefer to keep this as is. [GF]: It is just a suggestion. In the RFCs I wrote, I included an implementation section, when it is relevant, because I think that an implementer can be interested to the considerations on the deployment. For me it is a nit. I leave it to you. Best, Peter + co-authors -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
