Hi Paul, We updated the document per your latest email. All of our questions have now been addressed.
Note that we used “dns-rr” for the two sourcecode blocks in Section 2.3 per feedback from RPAT and internal discussion. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process. — FILES (please refresh) — Updated XML file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9718.xml Updated output files: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9718.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9718.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9718.html Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9718-auth48diff.html Diff files showing all changes: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9718-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9718-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9718 Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > On Jan 7, 2025, at 1:24 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote: > > On Jan 7, 2025, at 11:07, Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrhee...@amsl.com> wrote: >> >> Thank you for the quick reply! You mention that you provided "notes on the >> visible changes” in addition to answers to our questions, but we only see >> your answers to our questions. Let us know if we are missing anything. > > This was a mistake on my part. I had two things from looking through the > diffs, but then saw them in your questions and answered them there. > >> We updated the document (see list of files below) and have a few followup >> questions/comments: >> >> 1) >>>> b) Last sentence above - We see several registries mentioned in RFC 9157 >>>> (see >>>> notes below). Would it be helpful to specify which registries this sentence >>>> refers to? We see references to RFC 4034 in some of these registries but >>>> not >>>> all. >>>> >>>> These registry groups are mentioned in Section 4 of RFC 9157: >>>> >>>> - "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) NextSECure3 (NSEC3) Parameters" >>>> (https://www.iana.org/assignments/dnssec-nsec3-parameters) >>>> - "DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest >>>> Algorithms" (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/) >>>> >>>> These registries within the above registry groups are also mentioned: >>>> >>>> - DNSSEC NSEC3 Flags >>>> - DNSSEC NSEC3 Hash Algorithms >>>> - DNSSEC NSEC3PARAM Flags >>>> - Digest Algorithms >>>> >>>> We also see that Section 3 of RFC 9157 includes a citation to the following >>>> registry in the OLD/NEW text, but we had to look at RFC 8624 to see the >>>> name >>>> of the registry: >>>> >>>> - [DNSKEY-IANA] - "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers" >>>> (http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers) >>>> --> >>> >>> We only mean the Digest Algorithms registry. No reader would be confused >>> about this, but you can specify it anyway. >> >> To clarify, which of the following is correct? Or do you prefer to leave the >> original? You note that readers will not be confused by this. >> >> Original: >> The IANA registries for these values are described in [RFC9157]. >> >> Perhaps: >> The "Digest Algorithms" registry for these values is described in [RFC9157]. >> >> Or: >> The “DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest >> Algorithms” registry for these values is described in [RFC9157]. > > RFC 9157 only updates some of the DNSSEC-related IANA registries. The > original sentence could instead say "The IANA registries for DNSSEC-related > values are described in [RFC9157]. The sentence doesn't need to point to a > single registry. > >> 4) >>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] Sourcecode >>>> >>>> a) We see that type="Zone" is used for some sourcecode >>>> elements. This type does not appear on the current list of preferred >>>> values for the type attribute: >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types__;!!PtGJab4!6HibyQ2KHSR3yhUdmKkYm9zQa_NB1totFrlnKYAFiX_7TFwWVbokSTRGbCV0nDRHxBYTVmJ6W4PHLjAJ_0dzo6N8MZLf$ >>>> [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>> >>>> Would you like to remove type="Zone"? It is acceptable to leave the "type" >>>> attribute not set. Alternately, would you like to suggest type="Zone" be >>>> considered as as addition to the list? If so, we can submit it for review >>>> by >>>> the RPC team. >>> >>> This came up during the IETF discussion of the draft. We would like >>> type="Zone" to be added to the list, given that there are many RFCs that >>> show the contents of DNS zones. >> >> We submitted type=“Zone” for consideration as an addition to the list. We’ll >> keep you posted on this. > > > Just to be clear, and to reflect the RPAT discussion: we are fine with any > notation that indicates DNS resource records as they appear in a zone. "Zone" > is fine, but so are other names if they are preferable to the RPC. > >> 5) >>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] The following terms are enclosed in <tt> in this document. >>>> >>>> id >>>> source >>>> TrustAnchor >>>> validFrom >>>> validUntil >>>> >>>> Some of these appear both with and without <tt>. For example, we see both >>>> "TrustAnchor element" (no <tt>) and "<tt>TrustAnchor</tt> element" (with >>>> <tt>). >>>> >>>> Also, some elements are enclosed in <tt> (e.g., "<tt>id</tt> element"), but >>>> other elements are not (e.g., "KeyDigest element" and "Zone element"). >>>> >>>> Please review to ensure the usage of <tt> is correct and consistent. Let us >>>> know if any updates are needed. >>>> --> >>> >>> Choosing when to use <tt> is a personal decision, one that is rarely done >>> consistently in the IETF. In looking back, all element names and attribute >>> names should be in <tt> to be consistent. I doubt anyone will care much >>> about inconsistencies here. >> >> Should “publickeyinfo” be in <tt>? > > Yes. XML named patterns are like elements or attributes. > >> 6) When making updates to the usage of <tt>, we noticed that the following >> sentences use "id element”. Should these be updated to “id attribute”? > > Good catch! Yes. I see it four times in the current text. > > --Paul Hoffman > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
