> On 19 Oct 2022, at 22:54, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote: > > On Oct 19, 2022, at 6:38 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker > <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Thanks for working on this specification. I think a BCP would be helpful. >> >> I have two minor comments - >> >> - Section 1: if we can elaborate on "modern DNSSEC" that would be more useful >> to understand the characteristic of the modern DNSSEC rather just calling it >> modern. > > Good catch! > >> - Section 1.2: it says - "reading the RFCs should also include looking >> for the related errata", may be it better to clarify if we mean all the >> erratas >> with all the states or just verified ones. > > I think you meant to send this to rfc-inter...@rfc-editor.org. :-)
sure why not :-) more eyes on errata ;-) > The question of which errata should and should not be read is a tricky one, > because some editorial errata greatly help the readers' understanding, while > others are trivial. In that sense, to be very honest, the whole suggestion of reading errata seems confusing and unnecessary in the context of this document. But this is my minor comment. //Zahed
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
