Re: [Dcrup] [taugh.com-standards] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-13: (with COMMENT)

["John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>]

> % I believe the [FIPS-180-4-2015] reference should be replaced with a
> % reference to RFC-6376
>
> Still relevant.  (This is the citation for SHA-256; we generally
> prefer IETF references to external references.)

RFC 6376 is the DKIM spec that we are updating.  It uses SHA-256 and 
defines it by referring to the FIPS document.  I suppose I could change it 
to "see RFC6376 reference FIPS-180-3-2008" but that seems cruel, and would 
miss the fact that 180-3 has been updated since 6376 was published.

> % Remove or indicate the RFC Editor should remove the following text:
> %
> %       Discussion Venue:    Discussion about this draft is directed to the
> %       [e-mail] [1] mailing list.
>
> Still relevant.

Sorry, relevant to what?  Surely you're not saying that the staff in the 
RPC don't know to remove this kind of stuff as they turn drafts into RFCs.

> % This sentence doesn't parse easily:
> %
> %      This is an additional DKIM signature algorithm added to Section 3.3
> %    of [RFC6376] as envisioned in Section 3.3.4 of [RFC6376].
> %
> % It should simply say something like "This document adds an
> % additional key algorithm type to the DKIM Key Type Registry and a
> % new signature type to the DKIM Hash Algorithms Registry"
>
> Still relevant, though AFAICT only the Key Type Registry is
> impacted.

Having rewritten that sentence several times to get WG consensus, I am not 
inclined to mess with it unless it is wrong, which I am reasonbly sure it 
is not.

> % Section 4 and 8 have an introductory lines that says "update as
> % follows" followed by a dot instead of a colon. That is a little
> % confusing to the reader, as if some text is missing before the dot.
>
> Still relevant (though I guess I would prefer "as described in the
> following sections" to using a colon).

Copyediting nit, the RPC will make it match whatever the style is.

> suggested changes, it's really unclear what conclusion to draw when
> the review is met with a curtain of silence.

I already wrote back to Paul, didn't realize I needed to tell the entire 
IETF.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

PS: if I sound crabby, my defense is that today is Porchfest in my village 
and I've been hearing to my neighbors play bad folk music for the past 
three hours.