Jason- FWIW: The -04 draft looks good. It is clear and well written and I think it is a valuable resource. As I am late to looking at this draft please take this only as a comment from a narrow minded engineer ;-) After the rationale, explanations and caveats I kept looking for how to implement a NTA. After initially thinking this would be the introduction of some new functionality and RRset manipulation, I only found a reference to how Unbound implements it. So it might be useful to have section 2 "Definition .." make that clear for slow people like me - that the NTA is not an RR and is more of a configuration. Maybe simply replacing "placed" with "implemented" in section 2? "This NTA can potentially be [placed][implemented] at any level within the chain of trust..." Feel free to ignore of this thread has already been covered. Regardless of whether my comment makes sense, I do this this is a useful draft to have.
-Rick From: dnsop-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Livingood, Jason Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 7:22 AM To: dnsop@ietf.org Subject: [DNSOP] New draft-livingood-negative-trust-anchors-04 Based on feedback yesterday on the list, I did a quick -04 update, which is now at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-livingood-negative-trust-anchors/. The are seven open issues documented at the end of the I-D. But the most important questions for this WG are: 1 - Is this worth consideration as a WG I-D or should it continue only as an individual I-D? 2 - If the answer to #1 is that it should be a WG I-D, would you like a brief discussion of the open issues at IETF 86? Thanks! Jason
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
