[DNSOP] Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-06

[Shawn Emery <[e-mail]>]

Hi DW,

On 6/6/24 1:53 PM, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> Hi Shawn,
>
> Thank you for the review and comments.
>
> We’ve fixed the editorial comments you identified.
>
> Regarding “decimal integer” — we use that phrase only when describing the
> presentation format (versus, say, hexadecimal) so we think it is appropriate.
>
> However, we would defer to the advice or suggestion of the RFC editor or
> other experts on this, if they have an opinion.

My first intuition was that a decimal is an integer with a fractional 
component.  However, precedence in this area has more credence than my 
intuition ;)

Regards,

Shawn.

--

>> On Jun 5, 2024, at 11:55 PM, Shawn Emery via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>
>> Reviewer: Shawn Emery
>> Review result: Has Nits
>>
>> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
>> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments
>> were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document
>> editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
>> comments.
>>
>> This draft specifies an extension in DNS for providing zone version information
>> for the associated query name.  This data allows callers to better correlate
>> the queried name to a zone version that it belongs, in order to better diagnose
>> synchronicity issues.
>>
>> The security considerations section does exist and describes that this EDNS
>> extension does not protect against an active attacker and therefore should only
>> be used for diagnostic purposes only.  The section continues, if zone version
>> information is to protected against an active attacker then the user should use
>> TSIG (RFC 8945) or SIG(0) (RFC 2931) to authenticate and provide integrity
>> protection.  In addition, there are no new privacy issues introduced by the new
>> extension given that version information is already provided publicly.  I agree
>> with the aforementioned assertions.
>>
>> General Comments:
>>
>> What's an unsigned decimal integer vs. unsigned integer?
>>
>> Editorials Comments:
>>
>> s/and and/and/
>> s/correspond do/correspond to the/
>>
>>