Re: [DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-04.txt

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bob,

Thanks you for the clarifications, I have updated my local copy with all
your comments.

Yours,
Daniel

[1]
https://github.com/mglt/draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements/blob/master/draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements.xml

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Thanks for the review, I will update the copy on the git accordingly.
>
> Yours,
> Daniel
>
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Bob Harold <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Migault <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please find an update of our draft on requirements for DNSSEC resolver.
>>>
>>> DNS resolvers hardly enable DNSSEC as 1) resolvers are not robust too
>>> DNS authoritative operations – like KSK roll over, signing errors…. – and
>>> 2) network administrators have little control on these resolvers to recover
>>> such situations.
>>>
>>> The draft describes how invalid DNSSEC related RRsets may be considered
>>> by the resolver. The listed requirements aim at designing mechanisms as
>>> well as interactions with network managers can easily solve/avoid these
>>> situations. Such mechanisms are expected to encourage DNSSEC deployment on
>>> resolvers.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:13 AM
>>> To: Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>; Daniel Migault <
>>> [e-mail]>; Dan York <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <
>>> [e-mail]>
>>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-valida
>>> tor-requirements-04.txt
>>>
>>>
>>> A new version of I-D, draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-valida
>>> tor-requirements-04.txt
>>> has been successfully submitted by Daniel Migault and posted to the IETF
>>> repository.
>>>
>>> Name:           draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements
>>> Revision:       04
>>> Title:          DNSSEC Validators Requirements
>>> Document date:  2017-03-27
>>> Group:          Individual Submission
>>> Pages:          10
>>> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-
>>> drafts/draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-04.txt
>>> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/
>>> doc/draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements/
>>> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/d
>>> raft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-04
>>> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/
>>> doc/html/draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-04
>>> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?
>>> url2=draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-04
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>>    DNSSEC provides data integrity and authentication for DNSSEC
>>>    validators.  However, without valid trust anchor(s) and an acceptable
>>>    value for the current time, DNSSEC validation cannot be performed.
>>>    This document lists the requirements to be addressed so resolvers can
>>>    have DNSSEC validation can be always-on.
>>>
>>
>> A few minor sugguestions:
>>
>>  The last part of the abstract
>> "can have DNSSEC validation can be always-on"
>> remove the last 'can' to get:
>> "can have DNSSEC validation be always-on"
>>
>> 2. Introduction Second paragraph ends: "and then most of the
>> communications relying on the DNS resolution." I would suggest "thus
>> disabling the communications relying on the DNS resolution."
>>
>> Fourth paragraph starts:
>> "The lake of management"
>> "lake" -> "lack"
>>
>> Fourth paragraph near end:
>> "these steps are way to small"
>> "to" -> "too"
>> and suggest
>> "these steps are much too small"
>>
>> Fifth paragraph
>> "and additiona mechanism"
>> try either
>> "and an additional mechanism"
>> or
>> "and additional mechanisms"
>>
>> 8.  Private KSK/ZSK
>> "split-zone" -> "split-view"
>>
>> --
>> Bob Harold
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>
>>
>