Re: [DNSOP] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-08: (with COMMENT)

[Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>]

Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[e-mail]> writes:

Hi Francesca,

> Before reading Alvaro's comment, I was going to bring up that the following
> paragraph in Section 3.2 could be confusing for a reader who is aware of the
> "Updates" RFC header.
> 
>    Note that this specification updates [RFC5155] by significantly
>    decreasing the requirements originally specified in Section 10.3 of
>    [RFC5155].  See the Security Considerations for arguments on how to
>    handle responses with non-zero iteration count.
> 
> I see that Alvaro is questioning if this doc should actually update 5155, I
> personally don't have a strong opinion, and don't think it is absolutely
> necessary, although I am curious to hear if there has been discussion in the
> community about it. In any case I think it would be good to rephrase the above
> paragraph to avoid saying that this doc updates 5155 when it doesn't.

I think all of these issues have been taken care by adding an Updates
clause, and mentioned in other threads.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI