[DNSOP] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-07: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 09 March 2020 07:59 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>, benno@NLnetLabs.nl
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <158374074230.13959.963428097477433783@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 00:59:02 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/MDnIBKufuPOVRPgSL1kiZljamec>
Subject: [DNSOP] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-07: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-07: 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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis/



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

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is clear and easy to read.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs and NITs. An answer will be
appreciated.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

There are 6 authors while the usual procedure is to limit to 5 authors.
Personally, I do not care.

-- Section 1.3 --
It is a little unclear to me whether the "two nameservers" were two
implementations or two actual DNS servers.

-- Section 5.2 --
Suggest to provide some justifications about "copied to a safe location": the
DNS message was sent in the clear, why does the TSIG part be copied in a safe
location? Please define what is meant by "safe location" (Mainly for my own
curiosity)

"cannot be understood" is also quite vague.

-- Section 5.3 --
About rejecting request with a time signed value being earlier than the last
received value. I wonder what is the value of this behavior if there is no
'fudge' as well... The last paragraph of this section describes this case and
push the error handling to the request initiator. Any reason why being flexible
on the receiving site was not selected ?

== NITS ==

-- Section 4.3.2 --
Is " A whole and complete DNS message in wire format." a complete and valid
sentence?

[DNSOP] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker