Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] How may "unreasonable" be clarified? We ask because we aren't sure if this will be completely clear to the reader. Current: However, when the outgoing query occurs via encrypted transport, some amplification is possible, both with respect to bandwidth and computational burden. In this case, the usual principle of bounding the work applies, even under unreasonable events. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] Is it correct that the Scheme and Mneumonic are tied together, so registrations with the same mneumonic would have the same scheme value? We ask because RRtypes CDS and CSYNC both display "1" in the Scheme column in the "DSYNC: Location of Synchronization Endpoints" registry. Also, is it correct that the Scheme column is the range of code points available for assignment (i.e., a separate column for values is not needed)? Original: * Point squatting should be discouraged. Reviewers are encouraged to get sufficient information for registration requests to ensure that the usage is not going to duplicate one that is already registered and that the point is likely to be used in deployments. The code points tagged as "Private Use" are intended for testing purposes and closed environments. Code points in other ranges should not be assigned for testing. >From the IANA registry ><https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#dsync-location-of-synchronization-endpoints> RRtype Scheme Mnemonic Purpose 0 Null scheme (no-op) CDS 1 NOTIFY Delegation management CSYNC 1 NOTIFY Delegation management 2-127 Unassigned 128-255 Reserved for Private Use --> 4) <!-- [rfced] "a secondary checking frequently for new versions of a zone, and infrequent checking" is hard to parse. Perhaps this can be clarified? Original: [RFC1996] addressed the optimization of the time-and-cost trade-off between a secondary checking frequently for new versions of a zone, and infrequent checking, by replacing scheduled scanning with the more efficient NOTIFY mechanism. Perhaps A: [RFC1996] addressed the optimization of the time-and-cost trade-off between a secondary server frequently checking for new versions of a zone and infrequent checks by replacing scheduled scanning with the more efficient NOTIFY mechanism. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] Would you like to add some text to indicate that "the authors acknowledge the contributions and reviews of the following individuals, listed in order of date received" or similar? Original: In order of first contribution or review: ... --> 6) <!-- [rfced] May we expand "DS" and "NS" as Delegation Signer and Name Server upon first usage for clarity? FYI - we added the expansion "Fully Qualified Domain Name" for FQDN. Please let us know if this is objectionable. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] For consistency, should "Notify" be "NOTIFY" in the Appendix? We ask because the term is fully capitalized throughout the document, excluding the Appendix section. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. In addition, please consider whether "traditional" and "native" should be updated for clarity. While the NIST website <https://web.archive.org/web/20250214092458/https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous. These are subjective terms, as they may mean the same thing for everyone. Note that updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. Current A: Traditional DNS notifications [RFC1996], which are here referred to as "NOTIFY(SOA)", are sent from a primary server to a secondary server, to minimize the latter's convergence time to a new version of the zone. Current B: The basic idea was to augment the traditional "pull" mechanism (a periodic SOA query) with a "push" mechanism (a Notify) for a common case that was otherwise very inefficient (due to either slow convergence or wasteful and overly frequent scanning of the primary for changes). Current C: This opens up the possibility of having an arbitrary party (e.g., a side- car service) send the notifications, enabling this functionality even before the emergence of native support in nameserver software. --> Thank you. Sarah Tarrant and Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center On Sep 5, 2025, at 9:32 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/09/05 RFC Author(s): -------------- Instructions for Completing AUTH48 Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Planning your review --------------------- Please review the following aspects of your document: * RFC Editor questions Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: <!-- [rfced] ... --> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. * Changes submitted by coauthors Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. * Content Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) - contact information - references * Copyright notices and legends Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). * Semantic markup Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message. You may submit your changes in one of two ways: An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of changes in this format Section # (or indicate Global) OLD: old text NEW: new text You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. Approving for publication -------------------------- To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. Files ----- The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9859.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9859.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9859.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9859.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9859-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9859-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9859-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9859 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC 9859 (draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-09) Title : Generalized DNS Notifications Author(s) : J. Stenstam, P. Thomassen, J. Levine WG Chair(s) : Benno Overeinder, Ond?ej Surý Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
