Hello Warren, Thanks for the quick reply and revised I-D. We agree on all points, and I will proceed shortly with the IETF Last Call, some more comments below as EV>
Regards -éric From: Warren Kumari <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, 18 February 2025 at 23:35 To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] AD review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-05 5. Section 1.1 s/ be less secure *then* originally thought/ be less secure *than* originally thought/ and s/ In general it/ In general*,* it/ Doh! Done. Schooled by a non-native English speaker :-P EV> it happens sometimes ;-) 10. Section 2, I think that the right IANA terms are registries/fields and not tables/columns (same comments at multiple places) It looks like you are technically correct ("The best kind of correct") for the tables vs registries bit, but RFC8126 - "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8126/> seems to say that "column" is the correct term for, er, well, a column….. So I s/table/registry/, but not s/column/field/. EV> fair enough 12. Section 4, where is “*” definition in table 3 ? That is defined in the existing registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xml), and says: "* There has been no determination of standardization of the use of this algorithm with Transaction Security. " EV> suggest to add some text 16. Sections 2 & 7, I find it strange to find IANA policies and values in section 2 and having a reference to this section 2 in the actual IANA considerations (section 7). This would require some heavy text change, but I sincerely believe that this will be clearer. Thank you; we have discussed this with the IANA, and they are OK with it. Basically, the entire document is all about updating IANA information, and so the IANA considerations section just points at the rest of the document… While we *could* reorganize the whole document, I think that it would actually end up confusing. EV> If IANA is fine with the flow, who am I to propose something else ? 😊 18. Section 7.2 I think it is either ` Update the registration policy for the [DS-IANA<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types>] registry to match the text describing update requirements above. 19. ` (unclear what the “above” means here) or ` the registration policy for the [DS-IANA<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types>] registry should match the text in describing the requirements in Section 2 of this document` Wow, good catch. We have fixed these… EV> I have not seen any change in the I-D though about the vague “above”...
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
