I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf-06
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2026-04-29
IETF LC End Date: 2026-05-08
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

As a body of text recording history it is fine. However there are a couple of IESG policy issue that may be a cause for concern.

Major issues: As a body of text this is fine. However, I remember long discussions about whether information like this should be recorded as an RFC causing extra work for the RFC production centre, or whether the eternal existence of draft was a satisfactory historic reference, or whether a wiki was a better approach. I certainly remember RTG drafts of this type being declined RFC status at IESG level on that basis. This is clearly not a GENART issue, but one that the IETG should be consistent on.

I note that the RFC2119 declaration is not of standard format and believe that should be changed. However the RFC2119 declaration refers to a human behaviour and my recollection is that IESG policy (after long discussion) was that this was not appropriate. If I have misremembered I apologies, but the usage must be aligned with policy.

Minor issues:None

Nits/editorial comments: None