Adding Acronyms to Simplify Conversations about DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE)
RFC 7218

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2014-02-19)
No email
send info
I am fine with changing this to Informational.

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -03)
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-02-18)
No email
send info
I agree with Pete's point that this should be an Informational document.

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-02-20)
No email
send info
I would support either document class ("don't care").

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-02-11 for -03)
No email
send info
Please expand DANE and TLSA on first use.

(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-02-19)
No email
send info
In section 2.2, right after the caption for Table 1, the following text appears:

   Other options suggested for 0: PKIX-TA

It appears that this is what is actually in the table, so this text makes no sense.

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Abstain

Abstain (2014-02-20)
No email
send info
Stephen and I spent a couple of billion nanoseconds on this. That's enough of them.

I do think that this document should be Informational. Any normative information is buried in an IANA Considerations section that I suspect will not be read after publication. Nothing requires that this be standards track, and the odds that it will advance are zero. The fact that it "Updates" a standards track document or that it is "changing a registry defined by a standards track document" does not require it to be standards track.

But the world will continue to spin. The number of bits spent on this has perturbed the spinning quite enough.