Hi Eric,
At 05:49 AM 05-05-2025, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
There have been substantive IETF Last Call comments once extending
the review outside of DNSOP. On my own read of the comments, there
are two critical ones:
* Are full-text explanations better or worse from UX or security
point of view ?
* Should the draft merge/include/... with
draft-nottingham-public-resolver-errors ?
The above comments could cause major changes in the I-D requiring
another IETF Last Call. If the authors or DNSOP WG prefer, then the
draft can be sent back to the DNSOP WG for more community work.
As an example of UX issues, I came across the following:
https://r.elandsys.com/r/57132 Service providers were required to
redirect soccer fans to a landing page. The subjectAltName in the
certificate did not match the host name for the landing page. The
web browser will warning the user about that.
I would also list i8n as a potential issue. I didn't see a response
to my comment about that.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
