Missed the period at the end of the salutation. 😑 > On Jan 15, 2025, at 8:47 AM, Lynne Bartholomew > <lbartholo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Hi, Tiru, Ben, and Éric*. > > * Éric, please let us know if you approve the change from "could" to "MAY". > (We have to get AD approval for any changes related to key words from RFC > 2119.) > > Tiru and Ben, we have updated this document per your notes below. Quick > follow-up question: > > Because "PvD" stands for "Provisioning Domain", "using DNR and PvD" reads as > "using DNR and Provisioning Domain", which reads a bit oddly. Should "and > PvD" be "and PvDs" or "and a PvD"? > > The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-rfcdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-lastrfcdiff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-xmldiff1.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-xmldiff2.html > > Thank you! > > RFC Editor/lb > > >> On Jan 15, 2025, at 7:21 AM, tirumal reddy <kond...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 at 8:42 PM, Ben Schwartz <bem...@meta.com> wrote: >>> The term "compliant" here seems to imply that the client is adhering to a >>> particular specification but it doesn't add meaningful information in this >>> context. >> >> Without "compliant", I think this sentence is potentially ambiguous as to >> whether we are describing an acceptable behavior or an unacceptable >> behavior. A simpler and clearer (but more invasive) change would be: >> >> NEW: >> The client MAY perform ... >> >> Sounds good to me. > > >> On Jan 15, 2025, at 7:12 AM, Ben Schwartz <bem...@meta.com> wrote: >> >>> The term "compliant" here seems to imply that the client is adhering to a >>> particular specification but it doesn't add meaningful information in this >>> context. >> >> Without "compliant", I think this sentence is potentially ambiguous as to >> whether we are describing an acceptable behavior or an unacceptable >> behavior. A simpler and clearer (but more invasive) change would be: >> >> NEW: >> The client MAY perform ... >> >> --Ben > >> On Jan 15, 2025, at 1:58 AM, tirumal reddy <kond...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> All of the changes look good except for the the following 2 issues: >> >> 1. >> >> To ensure that this assumption holds, clients MUST NOT relax the >> acceptance rules they would otherwise apply when using this resolver. >> For example, if the client would check the Authenticated Data (AD) >> bit or validate RRSIGs locally when using this resolver, it must also >> do so when resolving TXT records for this purpose. A compliant >> client could perform DNSSEC validation for the verification query >> even if it has disabled DNSSEC validation for other DNS queries. >> >> Comment> >> >> The term "compliant" here seems to imply that the client is adhering to a >> particular specification but it doesn't add meaningful information in this >> context. We are not explicitly talking about compliance with the DNSSEC >> standard, but rather the behavior of the client in a specific situation. We >> are proposing that clients who have disabled DNSSEC validation for some >> reason (e.g, performance) could enable DNSSEC but only for the verification >> query. >> >> 2. >> >> OLD: >> *Steps 1-2*: The client determines the network's DNS server >> (dns.example.net) and PvD ID (pvd.example.com) using DNR and one >> of the following: DNR Router Solicitation, DHCPv4, or DHCPv6. >> NEW: >> *Steps 1-2*: The client determines the network's DNS server >> (dns.example.net) and PvD ID (pvd.example.com) using DNR and PvD, along >> with one of >> the following: DNR Router Solicitation, DHCPv4, or DHCPv6. >> >> Cheers, >> -Tiru >> >> On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 at 22:00, Lynne Bartholomew >> <lbartholo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >> Hi, Dan and Kevin. >> >> Dan, we have updated your contact information per your note below. >> >> We have noted both of your approvals on the AUTH48 status page: >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9704 >> >> The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-rfcdiff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-lastdiff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-lastrfcdiff.html >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-xmldiff1.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-xmldiff2.html >> >> Thank you! >> >> RFC Editor/lb >> >>> On Jan 14, 2025, at 2:29 AM, Kevin Smith, Vodafone >>> <kevin.sm...@vodafone.com> wrote: >>> >>> Please also mark me as Approved – and thanks to all. >>> Kevin >> >>> On Jan 13, 2025, at 2:45 PM, Dan Wing <danw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> One minor change -- please remove the street address for my contact >>> information, as we just closed that building in Santa Clara, so: >>> >>> OLD: >>> Dan Wing >>> Citrix Systems, Inc. >>> 4988 Great America Pkwy >>> Santa Clara, CA 95054 >>> United States of America >>> Email: danw...@gmail.com >>> >>> NEW: >>> Dan Wing >>> Citrix Systems, Inc. >>> United States of America >>> Email: danw...@gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>> The existing title page abbreviation for my employer is fine as-is >>> ("Citrix"). >>> >>> With that, please mark me as Approved. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> -d >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 13, 2025, at 10:23 AM, Lynne Bartholomew >>>> <lbartholo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9704 >>>> >>>> The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: >>>> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.txt >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.pdf >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704.xml >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-diff.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-rfcdiff.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-auth48diff.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-lastdiff.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-lastrfcdiff.html >>>> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-xmldiff1.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9704-xmldiff2.html >>>> >>>> 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
