Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-14: 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-extended-error/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments: I know that in some crypto use cases, error codes are deliberately kept vague to frustrate analysis by attackers. Have the DNSSEC error codes been vetted for the same risk? Or does that not apply here? Sec 5.2: since the shepherd write up, the maximum 16-bit integer has dropped to 65280. Have these code points gone somewhere? Nits: Sec 4.4 s/serever/server Sec 6: s/validaion/validation The redundant word in “This information is unauthenticated information” is redundant. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
