On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote:
> Hi all, > > Was and I have updated this document to make it clearer and more > readable. Please take a read and let us know if any parts are unclear, > if you have any other feedback, etc. > > Is this close to done? > W > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 6:29 PM, <internet-dra...@ietf.org> wrote: > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-hardaker-rfc5011- > security-considerations-02.txt > > has been successfully submitted by Warren Kumari and posted to the > > IETF repository. > > > > Name: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations > > Revision: 02 > > Title: Security Considerations for RFC5011 Publishers > > Document date: 2017-02-02 > > Group: Individual Submission > > Pages: 8 > > URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet- > drafts/draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-02.txt > > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardaker-rfc5011- > security-considerations/ > > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardaker-rfc5011- > security-considerations-02 > > Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff? > url2=draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-02 > > > > Abstract: > > This document describes the math behind the minimum time-length that > > a DNS zone publisher must wait before using a new DNSKEY to sign > > records when supporting the RFC5011 rollover strategies. > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop> Thanks for your work on this. Some minor formatting issues: Table of contents: sections 5 and 5.1 have large blank space in middle (as formatted at https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-02.txt ) section 8 is wrapped unnecessarily Section 3: large space in first line Section 5: "poising" -> "poisoning" Section 5.1.1 "(a new)" -> "(anew)" Section 6 47 - 35 = 12 days (not 11)? -- Bob Harold
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
