[dns-privacy] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with COMMENT)

Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 06 May 2021 06:18 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BABB3A1068; Wed, 5 May 2021 23:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls@ietf.org, dprive-chairs@ietf.org, dns-privacy@ietf.org, tjw.ietf@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.28.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <162028190664.14000.16746761589914077982@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 23:18:27 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/VHsVXwxac5u52hTJa5-FzKBdz_Y>
Subject: [dns-privacy] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: <dns-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dns-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:dns-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 06:18:27 -0000

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


With my BCP 14 language complainer hat on:

Section 7:

* "Implementations SHOULD use [RFC7828] [...] to manage persistent
connections." -- since this is a SHOULD, can you suggest why an implementer
might opt not to do this?  Section 7.3.1 does a great job of handling the
SHOULD it presents, for example.

Sections 7.3.2 and 7.3.3:

* Same issue as above with the SHOULDs here.

Section 7.4:

* "Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that [...] there SHOULD be no more than [...]."
-- I don't know how to reconcile this RECOMMENDED-SHOULD combination in the
same sentence.  I suggest that the first clause can be dropped with no loss of

Everything else is nits, some of which were probably also mentioned by others:

Section 1:

* "authoritatives" should probably be "authoritative nameservers"

* "authenticated denial of existences records" -- s/existences/existence/

Section 4:

* "The proposed mechanisms does not attempt" -- s/does/do/, or

Section 6:

* "term is used to encompasses" -- s/encompasses/encompass/, or remove "is used

Sections 6.1 and 6.2

* "higher than the secondaries serial" -- s/secondaries/secondary's/

Section 6.2:

* "So there may be a fourth step above where [...].  There may also be a fourth
step where [...]." -- so there can be two "fourth" steps?

Section 6.3:

* "This section attempts to presents" -- remove "attempts to", or

* In the second paragraph, I think you need a comma after "servers".