Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
>> I imagine myself as a SECDIR reviewer, and believe this would be the
>> first section I would read for any document to which I'm assigned.
>> Discovering there a sentence that basically says "None" would get my back
>> up ("We'll see about that!").
>>
>> More generally, I have had success with my proposed tactic in the past,
>> so I thought I'd suggest it here.
>>
>
> I've gotten decreasingly tolerant of using gambits in a specification
> document, in order to maneuver through the process. I think the document
> should say what it needs to to do its job and not have material that is
> primarily for appeasement those in charge.  Gambits add cruft, and often
> mislead the reader into thinking there is substance when there isn't.
>
> (I think I hit my limit when we appeased an AD for KIM and added the
> requirement for the DKIM signature cover the From: field, thereby aiding in
> community misunderstanding of what DKIM does.)
>
> If the suggested change had any actual substance with respect to security
> issues, that would be quite a different matter.  But it doesn't.
>
> Obviously if the wg would prefer different language, we'll use it...
>

It's not a major issue (to me).  Just a suggestion.


> Reading the document, I got the impression that in your research you
>> discovered some underscore names that don't quite follow the proposed
>> placement.  If my inference is wrong, then so is that clause.
>>
>
> sorry, but apparently something is getting in the way of my understanding
> this issue.  Now I'm confused about the 'placement' reference.
>

I'm willing to accept that I'm inventing a problem here that doesn't
actually exist, and you're advocating more generally for keeping this
section as terse as possible, so let's skip it.

-MSK