[DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec-04: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec-04: 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-multi-provider-dnssec/



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

Thank you for responding to the SECDIR review by Daniel Migault (and thanks for
doing the review Daniel!)  The proposed clarifications would be helpful.

** Per Section 6.1, “Provider A would generate a new ZSK and communicate their
intent to perform a rollover …”, how is that communication done? Just as the
Security Considerations already talks about API security, is there an analogous
thing to say here in Section 12?

** Section 12.  As key generation is invoked as a step in a number of these
procedures, provide a pointer good practices for this step would be helpful,
say Section 3.4.4 of RFC6781.

** Editorial Nits:
-- A few places.  Typo. s/Authentiated/ Authenticated/g

-- Section 5.1.  Typo. s/prefered/preferred/

-- Section 5.2. Typo. s/Aggresive/Aggressive/