To everyone who reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis in WG Last Call: please carefully review the diff. Based on a very good IETF Last Call review from Petr Špaček, we had to make a significant technical change to the XML format, and we want to be sure that it works for everyone. We also updated the example (of course), and in doing so found a way to simplify the material around the example.
All comments welcome (until my birthday, August 18). --Paul Hoffman On Aug 9, 2024, at 11:05, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > > > Dear DNSOP, > > During the DNSDIR review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis-03, Petr Špaček > identified an issue: if you include the DNSKEY material you also need to > include the flags. > > The authors have published a new version addressing these changes, as well as > addressing more minor comments received during IETF LC. > > As this required a change to the XML syntax, I'd like to get the DNSOP WGs > review / feedback on these changes. > > The IANA is eagerly awaiting this becoming a standard so that they can update > their trust anchor with the DNSKEY material - so, if you have any strong > objections to these changes, please let me know by end of day (anywhere!) on > Aug 18th > > Latest version: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis/ > Diff from -03: > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis-03&url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis-04&difftype=--html > > Thanks, > W _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
