Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-07: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- — Section 4.2 — * Other Len - an unsigned 16-bit integer specifying the length of the "Other Data" field in octets. * Other Data - this unsigned 48-bit integer field will be Does this mean that “other data” is always 48 bits? If so, does that mean tgat the value of “other len” is always 6? If so, then shouldn’t it say that? If not, then what don’t I understand? — Section 5.1 — Clients SHOULD only attempt signed transactions with servers who are known to support TSIG and share some algorithm and secret key with the client -- so, this is not a problem in practice. Why SHOULD and not MUST? — Section 5.3.2 — The server SHOULD also cache the most recent time signed value in a message generated by a key I tripped over this until I realized you mean “Time Signed value”. You capitalize it elsewhere, and it helps the parsing if it’s consistent. There are four uncapitalized instances in this section. — Section 9 — There is no structure required other than names for different algorithms must be unique when compared as DNS names, i.e., comparison is case insensitive. I found this sentence to be really awkward and hard to parse. May I suggest this?: NEW There is no structure to the names, and algorithm names are compared as if they were DNS names (the comparison is case-insensitive). END I don’t think you really need to say that each name is different/unique, right? other algorithm names are simple (i.e., single-component) names. Nitty thing that you can completely ignore, but I would avoid the Latin abbreviation thus: “other algorithm names are simple, single-component names.” _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
