Re: [dane] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-dane-ops-14: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Viktor; thanks for the quick response, and thanks for making the changes.

>> -- Section 4 --
>>
>>    Protocol designers need to carefully consider which set of DANE
>>    certificate usages to support.
>>
>> I'm not sure why this (and the next sentence) is referring to "protocol
>> designers".  Is this not aimed at implementation/deployment choices?  If
>> that's not correct, who are the targets for this advice?
>
> This should likely say "application protocol designers".  The point
> being that the use of DANE TLSA RRs in a particular application
> (as with e.g. SMTP) can be defined (more specifically than in
> RFC6698 and this draft) by an application-specific standard.

Ahhhh, of course; I get it now.  Thanks for the explanation.  Yes,
maybe you can say "designers of DANE profiles", or "designers of DANE
applications", or some such.  Please pick the correct wording.

>> I also find this section to be rather hard to follow -- I can't clearly
>> figure out what the advice really is.  Can you do a little reorganization
>> here, separating the advice out from the explanation of why?  I don't
>> care whether you put the explanation first or the advice first, but it
>> would help to have one paragraph that says, clearly and without fuss,
>> what the recommendation is.  This applies to the subsections as well.
>
> Will try to clarify, this will take more time.

Of course, and many thanks for considering it.

> Should the two
> smaller changes above be pushed as -15, while section 4 is polished?

I would say yes (revisions are cheap), but you should check with your
responsible AD.

Barry