[DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-05: (with COMMENT)

"Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 23 August 2016 12:57 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <147195704147.30754.321513524839800145.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 05:57:21 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/JjI1TL7Ug6uPoWWB5-OAPSSRD7k>
Cc: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-05: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-05: Yes

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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for adding alg 8 in response to my discuss. I think you might
want to do another editing pass just to check that the end result is
fully consistent, e.g. I'm not sure if alg 8 should also be mentioned in
section 1.3. The diff from -04 to -05 might also contain a few other
such things, but I'm in an airport now so better I clear the discuss 
and leave such tidying to you.

--- OLD COMMENTs below, I didn't check 'em vs. the latest
version

general, mostly 3.x.y: it'd have been nice to include a
dig command line for each of these tests - that'd save the
non-expert reader some time and allow easy scripting of
most of this BCP.

general: Why not say to include a test with a known, but
not well-known, public key (or DS) to check if anyone on
the path is fibbing? E.g. a tester could remember a few
public keys and check that they've not changed in a new
location.  While that may only catch out a cheating real
parent, did you consider including such a test?

- 3.1.4: How is a "recently defined type" a reasonable
thing to check for in a BCP? Seems odd anyway.

- 6.1: what if there is no user? Why not recommend telling
some network observatory? Aren't there some for DNSSEC?

[DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop… Stephen Farrell