review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-experiments-02

Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info> Fri, 10 March 2006 19:06 UTC

Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:00:21 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
To: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Subject: review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-experiments-02
Message-ID: <20060310190020.GA1027@afilias.info>
Reply-To: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

Dear colleagues,

I have reviewed the document draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-experiments-02. 
Here are my comments.

First, I strongly support the goal of this document.  I think it's a
good idea to have a well-defined methodology for these experiments. 

It seems to me that the first bit under 4 could be clarified:

   The core of the methodology is the use of strictly "unknown"
   algorithms to sign the experimental zone

isn't strictly true, if I'm reading this right, because it isn't the
_algorithm_ that is unknown, but its identifier (that seems to be
what the clarification in paragraph 6 actually says).  I don't think
this is a big deal, but it might be worth altering if other changes
are being made.  

Even without the above clarification, however, I would support the
document going forward.

Nits
====

Section 1, 1st paragraph:

   Throughout this document, familiarity with the DNS system (RFC1035
   [4]) and the DNS security extensions ([1], [2], and [3].

	* this doesn't seem to be a sentence.  Maybe
   
   This document assumes the reader's familiarity with RFC1035 ([4])
   and the DNS security extensions ([1], [2], and [3]).

Section 9

   IANA may need to allocate new DNSSEC algorithm numbers if that
   transition approach is taken, or the experiment decides to use
   allocated numbers to begin with.

	* the antecedent of the "that transition" was a little muddy
		to me.  Here's a suggested replacement, a little
		verbose:

   IANA may need to allocate new DNSSEC algorithm numbers in two
   cases: in case of a successful experiment that elects to move to 
   standards track by the adoption of newly allocated algorithm
   numbers (as outlined in section 7); and in case the experiment
   uses allocated numbers to begin with.


Best regards,
A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@ca.afilias.info>                              M2P 2A8
                                        +1 416 646 3304 x4110


--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-experiments-02 Andrew Sullivan