IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 04 April 2017 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68E1129531 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=gO2p0+oh; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=DRgbwLBB
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 rTDzcgRyulKY for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24E6512778E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC17BEF8C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:03:37 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1491339817; bh=CEAwZWJW5WqT2N0tS5PaBA8L3k5BLDhQOYQdbAf7rok=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=gO2p0+ohkJJSIBwCUaCbsL6hlS4Jae54bzF+8KDJSnEvbxouGyhWj7ZCx2WEEW4fJ 7InuWeBVqttPl/+sZwPhudobylAm59/zm/vaXY/XrOSOA/wAd2bAbp/XGIFVKVXSQ3 n8lgeT4CcLagBnPz/LkwF4M4zs4c5b6mMO7dCVOM=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TZu4drt_sGoD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:03:36 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 17:03:33 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1491339816; bh=CEAwZWJW5WqT2N0tS5PaBA8L3k5BLDhQOYQdbAf7rok=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=DRgbwLBB+O4A9cvLN/Qtp8ameK93h7smsXW+AjrLm9V93LcnJWcxq8HStmC2co6vs ZfrdUBG58a3tm3HYfq6nBtltqZrTw71tcg4dN1jkXlYHm0FteyMEW0Trt94F5J69Nx tP9ck9gXIVlie6sQ9zu8sk4Frtl2DajjUiEe792U=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170404210333.GA1803@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <333CCE99-82E2-44C9-97ED-2222540097ED@gmail.com> <20170401201727.GA5948@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170401201727.GA5948@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1qBTWwYaHJD6-ACe5tBW6JcwiqE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 21:04:12 -0000

Hi,

Thanks for the review.

On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 03:17:27PM -0500, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Editorial :
> 
> Section 1:
> 
> "and that should not be resolved" I cannot parse it. Missing "it"?

Yes.

> 
> Section 5 :
> 
> After "and anyone watching queries along the path", add a reference to
> RFC 7626?

A good idea.  Thanks.

> Normative references:
> 
> Why is RFC 6303 a normative reference? It is no longer used.

Should be removed.  Thanks.

> Why is RFC 7686 a normative reference? It is just an example.

Yeah, we should move it.  Thanks.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email