Hi Duane, Thanks -- this all sounds good (and it sounds like Rob is okay with the new thought for text about reporting, as well).
Thanks again! -Ben On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 03:54:02PM +0000, Wessels, Duane wrote: > > > > On Oct 11, 2020, at 9:03 PM, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker > > <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-zone-digest-13: Yes > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Thanks for addressing my discuss (and comment!) points. There are still > > a few more threads to tidy up, but I'm happy with the direction we're > > going. > > > > Section 1 > > > > We (implicitly) mention "integrity" here as provided in the absence of > > DNSSEC, but later in Section 1.1 we say that integrity can only be assured > > when the zone is signed. I leave it to Roman to say when his discuss is > > resolved, but it seems likely that we should be consistent about which way > > we go with it. > > Looks like I missed that spot in when addressing Roman's point. Now changed > to this: > > It allows a receiver of the > zone to verify the zone's integrity and authenticity when used in > combination with DNSSEC. > > > > > Section 1.1 > > > > It's perhaps unusual to follow "the motivation for this protocol" with "a > > secondary motivation"; instead writing "the primary motivation" would reduce > > the surprise at seeing a secondary motivation added later. > > Agreed. This has been changed. > > > > > > Section 2.2.2 > > > > This change seems to be a regression? The value 1 in question is the > > scheme value, not a Hash Algorithm value. (I would make this a > > Discuss point but I am sure we will get it resolved quickly.) > > Oops, I changed that in the wrong place. Now it says "with Scheme value 1" > there > and "with Hash Algorithm value 1" in the next section. > > > > > > Section 3 > > > > (nit) Right now the literal reading of "identical" is that the ZONEMD and > > the signature and the denial-of-existence records are identical, which > > is of course nonsensical. Perhaps adding "to the ones produced by this > > procedure" or similar would reduce the stress for people who habitually > > make sentence diagrams. > > Changed to this: > > Implementations that deviate from the > described algorithm are advised to ensure that it produces ZONEMD > RRs, signatures, and dential-of-existence records that are identical > to the ones generated by this procedure. > > > > > Section 4 > > > > I can't tell if there's a duplicate line in the XML source or not, here > > (as an editing leftover), but that's my guess as to what happened. In > > particular, I'm not sure how one would query for a DS RR *in the anchor*. > > If I'm reading the previous thread correctly we were only proposing to talk > > about querying for (and validating) DS RRs in the parent zone, not the > > anchor (whatever that means). > > Yes indeed there was a line duplicated during editing. Now: > > This is done by examining locally > configured trust anchors, and, if necessary, querying for (and > validating) DS RRs in the parent zone. > > > > > Who is going to come to a conclusion on the "[ Maybe remove all the "SHOULD > > report" above and just say this:]"? (I'd be fine with it, for what little > > it's worth, but I don't think my opinion is anywhere close to the most > > relevant one.) > > Both you and Rob asked about this -- the possibility of overly verbose > reporting. > I'd like to hear Rob's opinion. > > DW > > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
