[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9975 <draft-ietf-dnsop-cds-consistency-11> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Peter and *AD,

*AD - please review question 7 below (related to BCP 14 keywords).

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.

1) <!--[rfced] Please note that we have updated the abbreviated title for
     this document from "cds-consistency" to instead read as "CDS
     Consistency".  Please let us know any objections. -->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->


3) <!--[rfced] We had a few questions regarding the following text:

Original:
The corresponding Section 6.1 of [RFC7344] (CDS/CDNSKEY) contains no
provision for how specifically queries for these records should be
done.

a) "The corresponding Section 6.1" sounds a bit strange (as it is being compared to Section 3.1 of RFC 7477).  May we update as follows?

Perhaps:
[RFC7344] has a corresponding section (Section 6.1) (CDS/CDNSKEY) that
contains no provision for how specifically queries for these records
should be done.

b) How does the parenthetical (CDS/CDNSKEY) relate to the sentence?
It is not the title of Section 6.1.  Please review.
-->


4) <!--[rfced] Please review this use of the plural possessive (as previous text in the same paragraph used singular possessive).

Original:
In any case, a single provider should not be in the position to remove
the other providers' records from the delegation.

Perhaps:
In any case, a single provider should not be in the position to remove
the other provider's records from the delegation.
-->


5) <!--[rfced] Would it make sense to add a pointer to RFC 2308 or RFC
     9499 on first use of NODATA for the ease of the reader?

Original:
(A NODATA response is a received response.)

Perhaps:
(A NODATA response [RFC9499] is a received response.)
-->


6) <!--[rfced] Would it make sense to make the following update for a
     parallel between implicitly and explicitly?

Original:
Any pending queries can immediately be dequeued when encountering a
response that confirms the status quo, either implicitly (NODATA) or
explicitly.

Perhaps:
Any pending queries can immediately be dequeued when encountering a
response that confirms the status quo, either implicitly (NODATA) or
explicitly (via a response that matches the current delegation state).
-->


7) <!--[rfced] [AD] May we break up this sentence as follows?  As it would require repetition of a BCP 14 keyword, please advise:

Original:
   To retrieve a Child's CDS/CDNSKEY RRset for DNSSEC delegation trust
   maintenance, the Parental Agent, knowing both the Child zone name and
   its NS hostnames, MUST ascertain that queries are made against all
   nameservers listed in the Child's delegation from the Parent, and
   ensure that each key referenced in any of the received answers is
   also referenced in all other received responses, or that responses
   consistently indicate a request for removal of the entire DS RRset
   ([RFC8078], Section 6).

Perhaps:
   To retrieve a Child's CDS/CDNSKEY RRset for DNSSEC delegation trust
   maintenance, the Parental Agent, knowing both the Child zone name
   and its NS hostnames, MUST ascertain that queries are made against
   all nameservers listed in the Child's delegation from the Parent.
   It MUST also ensure that each key referenced in any of the received
   answers is also referenced in all other received responses or that
   responses consistently indicate a request for removal of the entire
   DS RRset ([RFC8078], Section 6).

-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized
or left in their current order?
-->


9)  <!--[rfced] Is this a shared copy?

Original:
  First, the providers include each other's signing keys as DNSKEY and
  CDS/CDNSKEY records in their copy of the zone.

Perhaps:
  First, the providers include each other's signing keys as DNSKEY and
  CDS/CDNSKEY records in their copies of the zone.

-->


10) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions about abbreviations used throughout the document:

a) How may we expand DS?  Delegation Signer as used in RFC 4034?

b) How may we expand EPP?  Extensible Provisioning Protocol as used in
RFC 5730?

-->


11) <!--[rfced] The following similar forms are used throughout the document.  Please let us know if/how the
y may be made uniform:

child vs. Child
parent vs. Parent
-->


13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed.  Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should 
still be reviewed as a best practice.

-->


Thank you.

Megan Ferguson
RFC Production Center

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2026/05/06

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/)

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
   follows:

   <!-- [rfced] ... -->

   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
   - contact information
   - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)

*  Semantic markup

   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

   *  your coauthors
   
   *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
     
   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
      list:
     
     *  More info:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
     
     *  The archive itself:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
        its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
 — OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9975.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9975.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9975.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9975.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9975-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9975-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9975-xmldiff1.html


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9975

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9975 (draft-ietf-dnsop-cds-consistency-11)

Title            : Clarifications on CDS/CDNSKEY and CSYNC Consistency
Author(s)        : P. Thomassen
WG Chair(s)      : Benno Overeinder, Ond?ej Surý

Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani