On Oct 20, 2022, at 12:07 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sar...@ericsson.com> wrote: > >> 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 topic of the semantics of errata will probably be part of the RSWG (and possibly RSAB). In this case... >> 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. ...it is important to a developer reading this BCP because some of the errata are indeed technical and affect implementations. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
