Hi Scott, On 7/5/23 21:59, Rose, Scott W. (Fed) wrote:
Coming up with this terminology was really challenging. The reason that the Signaling Name is only the prefix, without the Signaling Domain, is that it makes the rest of the spec easier. For example, from Section 3.1:To [...] authenticate the Child's CDS/CDNSKEY RRsets, the Child DNS Operator MUST co-publish them at the corresponding Signaling Name under each out-of-bailiwick Signaling Domain [...] With your definition, one would have to say To [...] authenticate the Child's CDS/CDNSKEY RRsets, the Child DNS Operator MUST co-publish them at each corresponding out-of-bailiwick Signaling Name [...] Do you feel that's an improvement?I honestly don’t have a good solution so maybe the original wording is best. I was thinking maybe changing it to “Signaling Name Prefix” but that isn’t an improvement either. I would be fine in leaving the text as-is since there doesn’t seem to be a better wording that is apparent. The rest of the doc is clear as to how the name is formed and used and that is the important part. I am fine with the other changes. I can update the review to “Ready” to finalize things for this version.
In case some better way of resolving the above occurs to you, please let me know. For now, I've posted the revision (-05) that includes your feedback. Thank you very much! Peter -- https://desec.io/ _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
