I approve this version for publication. --Ben Schwartz ________________________________ From: Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2025 1:23 PM To: Ben Schwartz <bem...@meta.com>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com> Cc: Ben Schwartz <bem...@meta.com>; kevin.sm...@vodafone.com <kevin.sm...@vodafone.com>; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; kond...@gmail.com <kond...@gmail.com>; danw...@gmail.com <danw...@gmail.com>; i...@bemasc.net <i...@bemasc.net>; add-...@ietf.org <add-...@ietf.org>; add-cha...@ietf.org <add-cha...@ietf.org>; mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9704 <draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority-14> for your review
Hi, Ben and Éric. Ben, we have further updated this document per your note below. Éric, we have noted your approval for the updates to Section 7 on the AUTH48 status page: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9704__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!8cQ0_W5U9y_XQABOcHliF8tMjte6PBzpwDjNGi7MrIATIkeZI94dHOhmYvR20Ds-s_8u8qGk2QQcrC64w5rF6BxdSJo$ The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.txt__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!8cQ0_W5U9y_XQABOcHliF8tMjte6PBzpwDjNGi7MrIATIkeZI94dHOhmYvR20Ds-s_8u8qGk2QQcrC64w5rFUwumy4c$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.pdf__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!8cQ0_W5U9y_XQABOcHliF8tMjte6PBzpwDjNGi7MrIATIkeZI94dHOhmYvR20Ds-s_8u8qGk2QQcrC64w5rFxvVjZYc$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!8cQ0_W5U9y_XQABOcHliF8tMjte6PBzpwDjNGi7MrIATIkeZI94dHOhmYvR20Ds-s_8u8qGk2QQcrC64w5rFJpa7HGE$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.xml__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!8cQ0_W5U9y_XQABOcHliF8tMjte6PBzpwDjNGi7MrIATIkeZI94dHOhmYvR20Ds-s_8u8qGk2QQcrC64w5rFC_RLrzI$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-diff.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!8cQ0_W5U9y_XQABOcHliF8tMjte6PBzpwDjNGi7MrIATIkeZI94dHOhmYvR20Ds-s_8u8qGk2QQcrC64w5rF0ZGsscQ$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-rfcdiff.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!8cQ0_W5U9y_XQABOcHliF8tMjte6PBzpwDjNGi7MrIATIkeZI94dHOhmYvR20Ds-s_8u8qGk2QQcrC64w5rFI-ckS2U$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-auth48diff.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!8cQ0_W5U9y_XQABOcHliF8tMjte6PBzpwDjNGi7MrIATIkeZI94dHOhmYvR20Ds-s_8u8qGk2QQcrC64w5rFDNfz278$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-lastdiff.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!8cQ0_W5U9y_XQABOcHliF8tMjte6PBzpwDjNGi7MrIATIkeZI94dHOhmYvR20Ds-s_8u8qGk2QQcrC64w5rFcSp9qHo$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-lastrfcdiff.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!8cQ0_W5U9y_XQABOcHliF8tMjte6PBzpwDjNGi7MrIATIkeZI94dHOhmYvR20Ds-s_8u8qGk2QQcrC64w5rF22zqEzc$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-xmldiff1.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!8cQ0_W5U9y_XQABOcHliF8tMjte6PBzpwDjNGi7MrIATIkeZI94dHOhmYvR20Ds-s_8u8qGk2QQcrC64w5rFni2Hqgg$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-xmldiff2.html__;!!Bt8RZUm9aw!8cQ0_W5U9y_XQABOcHliF8tMjte6PBzpwDjNGi7MrIATIkeZI94dHOhmYvR20Ds-s_8u8qGk2QQcrC64w5rFAW8kBLk$ Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On Jan 10, 2025, at 8:24 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hello Lynne, > The changes in section 7 are indeed borderline between technical and > editorial, but they respect my view of the IETF/ADD WG consensus. I.e., I > approve these changes. > Regards > -éric > On Jan 10, 2025, at 7:31 AM, Ben Schwartz <bem...@meta.com> wrote: > > >> Section 2: > >> > >> OLD: > >> Validated Split Horizon: Indicates that a split-horizon > >> configuration for some name is considered "validated" if the > >> client has confirmed that a parent of that name has authorized > >> this resolver to serve its own responses for that name. > >> > >> NEW: > >> Validated Split Horizon: A split-horizon > >> configuration for some name is considered "validated" if the > >> client has confirmed that a parent of that name has authorized > >> this resolver to serve its own responses for that name. > > > [rfced] We added the word "that" in order to keep the sentence-fragment > > style used in all four list items. Please let us know > if you would > > prefer your complete-sentence style for all four items. > > Sentence-fragment style is fine, but I find the adjusted text hard to parse. > Let's try this change: > > OLD: > A split-horizon configuration that for some name is considered "validated" if > the client has confirmed that a parent of that name has authorized this > resolver to serve its own responses for that name. > > NEW: > A split-horizon configuration that is authorized by the parents of the > affected names and confirmed by the client. > > --Ben
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
