[DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-14: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 21 April 2020 12:52 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, tjw.ietf@gmail.com
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <158747356185.9924.17208344302407376943@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 05:52:41 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/if74eFsFKQznfr6sDcLz44t6XjE>
Subject: [DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-14: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-14: 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-extended-error/



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

** Thanks for responding to the SECDIR review (and thanks Catherine Meadows for
the review).  I recommend applying the proposed text (suggested by Wes) to the
Security Considerations that resulted from the discussion.  For me, it strikes
a balance.

** Section 4.5.  Code = 4 (Forged answer) rolls up into a single code a number
of rationales as to why the answer was forged (e.g., legal vs. malware). 
However, when the request is blocked via blacklist, separate codes are not
defined to convey the rationale.  Why isn’t there symmetry?

** Section 6.  Per the example of [RFC2845] and [RFC8094] as being approaches
where DNS answer could be authenticated, consider adding RFC8484 to the list
too.

** Editorial Nits:
-- Section 1.  Typo. s/These extended  DNS error codes described in this
document and can be used … /These extended DNS error codes described in this
document can be used …/

-- Section 2.  Typo. s/ The INFO-CODE serves as an index into the "Extended DNS
 Errors" registry Section 5.1./ The INFO-CODE serves as an index into the
"Extended DNS Errors" registry defined in Section 5.1./

-- Section 4.  s/… in the "Extended DNS Errors" registry Section 5.1 ./ … in
the "Extended DNS Errors" registry defined in Section 5.1 ./

-- Section 4.9. s/but but/but/

-- Section 4.4. Typo. s/serever/server/

-- Section 7.  “One author also wants to thank the band …”, is this really
needed in an archival document?

[DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-iet… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker