Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-05.txt

"Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> Tue, 23 September 2014 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E231A1B18 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ly6tMU-x1TVM for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B373F1A1AE2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id em10so5131506wid.17 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:message-id:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=5HMmzI6UBTxN0WJ2hEE29UXbS2n7IEhcfiOQ3gRYyxw=; b=YPihz98R81WNJhiMNy02GBRN0A+l46rOAdW1vXu+i6/V2d/eAEVOWsfbe/tc4jzkpr 69oS4FD/ZYKazHk1qVP3efOoVuKbGRX/I/BAMesqknsYskpnrwS3BGfmgr1X8KR1KivV jtbqht7sn0PxPo72q3Oqc0NMe60Mb1Su9xeggH8mzVXf/+MPdquhB1eKoNTL4U3IIHXy 5J7+zhL7GVUKz1SP/TtX9kV3No5cimIAZ3FyvPJGf9PUD4SnY1Vrcbp7yZk14pR9LhSV ymfVgXMr0sis1uVvPIjo54emsL4/gcYTcBbqzCujyWUfIgMd9V5thrpKQNv98u0SkdDn AASg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnjg+7UNXfLg2d4XGWsNIdiHwPmHnmPlAH7KSSFjc4ouYeQystjb2SheH+/5Qix4Bt4glF5
X-Received: by 10.180.92.225 with SMTP id cp1mr4614796wib.5.1411486945944; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-179.wlan.no8.be.ucd.ie (clover.no8.be. [87.192.78.152]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nf2sm545701wic.1.2014.09.23.08.42.24 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie>
X-Google-Original-From: Niall O'Reilly <Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:42:27 +0100
Message-ID: <m24mvyjqcc.wl-Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <C3C8B727-1B0C-4DA2-9885-B4AFEC9F3580@vpnc.org>
References: <20140917121858.30503.75097.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <541B29CE.5040908@gmail.com> <C3C8B727-1B0C-4DA2-9885-B4AFEC9F3580@vpnc.org>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wL-XJsmFvFcuiXZZqjLBD8ozAvo
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-05.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:42:29 -0000

At Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:06:06 -0700,
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 
> I did a clean read, and it feels *much* better than the early drafts. I have a small number of editorial comments, but some bigger questions as well. I strongly suspect the questions can be answered by small additions to the draft.
> 
> At the beginning of 2.1:
>    For ZSKs, the issue for the zone operator/signer is to ensure that
>    any caching validator has access to a particular signature that
>    corresponds to a valid ZSK.
> "that corresponds to" seem wrong here. The following may be more accurate (or it might be wrong...):
>    For ZSKs, the issue for the zone operator/signer is to ensure that
>    any caching validator has access to a particular signature has
>    access to the corresponding valid ZSK.

  I can't parse the last sentence above and would appreciate
  clarification.

  The noun clause which is apparently intended as the object of the
  infinitive "to ensure" contains two finite verbs.  Perhaps a
  sub-ordinating conjunction has been omitted?


  Best regards,
  Niall O'Reilly