Re: [dane] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronyms-03

Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> Thu, 16 January 2014 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ogud@ogud.com>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE9D21ACCFA for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:46:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TQkLqeRpZsch for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:46:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp124.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (smtp124.ord1c.emailsrvr.com [108.166.43.124]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 959F61ABBB1 for <dane@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:46:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp8.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 521171A0278; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:45:59 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp8.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: ogud-AT-ogud.com) with ESMTPSA id D84A61A02D0; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:45:58 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6FC5AE16-B863-46CE-8F49-E2D7CCFD7A92"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA243CEC9A@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:45:58 -0500
Message-Id: <08A37247-FE33-4FC4-B56D-9925957D8920@ogud.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA243CEC9A@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronyms.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronyms.all@tools.ietf.org>, "dane@ietf.org" <dane@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dane] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronyms-03
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities <dane.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/>
List-Post: <mailto:dane@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:46:14 -0000

On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:11 AM, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>  
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>  
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.
>  
> Document: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronyms-03.txt
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review Date: 1/15/2014
> IETF LC End Date: 1/23/2014
> IESG Telechat date:
>  
> Summary:
> Ready with issues
>  
> Major issues:
> None – it’s a simple, clear and useful document.

thanks 

>  
> Minor issues:
> 1.       In Section 2.3 the I-D recommends that the values in reference column for SHA-256 and SHA-512 refer to [RFC 6698] while the IANA Considerations section in RFC 6698 recommends and the registry entries in the TLSA Matching Types table athttp://www.iana.org/assignments/dane-parameters/dane-parameters.xhtml  point to [RFC 6234].

Good Catch, fixed 

> 2.       As this I-D updates the registries with a column for acronyms, it seems more accurate that the reference columns of all tables mention both  [RFC 6698] and [RFC XXXX] (this RFC)

I'm not sure if I agree, all this document does is to change the format of the registries it is not the definitions of any table entry. 
But I think it would be good to change the reference for each of the registries to point to both RFC6698 and RFCXXXX 

I propose adding to each registry sections the following text: 
        "Update reference for this registry to include both [RFC6698] and [RFC-this-document]"

>  
> Nits/editorial comments:
> In the Introduction section:
> ‘This document updates the IANA registry definition for TLSA
>    record to add a column with acronym for each specified field’
> s/acronym/an acronym/
>  

Fixed 

thanks 

	Olafur