On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'm responding to Murray's impressive proofreading details offlist, but
> there are some points he raises that might need wg discussion:
Aw shucks.
> COMMENT:
>>
>> The text specifically calls for a stable reference. Do we have guidance
>> about what constitutes such a thing? I believe IANA has its own guidelines
>> to that end; are they available to the Designated Expert?
>>
>
> I'm inclined to let IANA raise this if they see and issue and then let
> them drive the resolution of this point.
Yeah, I don't have the right answer either, but I'm concerned that we're
asking the DE to make a decision with guidelines she doesn't have (or
worse, come up with some that are not consistent with what IANA usually
does).
> Section 6:
>>
>> COMMENT:
>>
>> I have doubts that SECDIR would accept this one-sentence comment. I
>> suggest saying something more specific, like:
>>
>> "This document establishes a registry, and encourages a slight
>> reorganization of attributes stored in the DNS. It establishes no new
>> security issues."
>>
>
> The first clause is redundant and makes sense to have here only either if
> the readers of this section haven't read the rest of the document, or if
> the clause is useful to what follows. I believe neither applies here.
>
I imagine myself as a SECDIR reviewer, and believe this would be the first
section I would read for any document to which I'm assigned. Discovering
there a sentence that basically says "None" would get my back up ("We'll
see about that!").
More generally, I have had success with my proposed tactic in the past, so
I thought I'd suggest it here.
I don't understand the 'encourages' statement but suspect I don't agree.
>
Reading the document, I got the impression that in your research you
discovered some underscore names that don't quite follow the proposed
placement. If my inference is wrong, then so is that clause.
> Section 6.1:
>>
>> COMMENT:
>>
>> This seems to me to be content that belongs in its own section outside of
>> Section 6 since it doesn't seem to me to be a security issue, but it's
>> worth saying. Maybe give it its own section between what's now Sections 3
>> and 4?
>>
>
> Well, I agree it's awkward where it is, but gosh. An entire major
> section? For such a small and explanatory -- rather than
> specification/normative bit of text? Mumble.
>
> If no one minds, I would rather make it Section 1.4, just after the
> sub-section tht describes the construct. I think it actually works well
> there.
That works too.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
