Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-16

[Samuel Weiler <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, W.C.A. Wijngaards wrote:

> The section and appendix on CD bits are long.  Not wrong, but long.
> With the root trust anchor deployed, not having a covering trust anchor
> is unlikely.

I know.  As Andrew said in the summary thread, he insisted.

> Section 6.2 is correct.  But its tone is loose.  It is about lenient
> acceptance of the SEP flag.  Please say that, or say that the proper
> setting of the SEP flag is defined in its RFC.

There are actually two things in here: one is about the SEP bit, the 
other is about using DNSKEYs in odd ways.  I think both need to stay, 
but your point about loose language is well taken.  I propose to 
reword the first two paragraphs to clean that up.

Thank you for your review.

-- Sam