[dnsext] resolving IESG comments on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates

I've been churning through the IESG telechat comments and single 
discuss on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates.

I have two questions for the WG, and I want to report on several 
textual changes that I plan to adopt, inspired by the IESG's comments.

Q1: (from Stephen Farrell)

> During the "no answer" mega-discussion on the DANE list, [1] I
> seem to recall this comment was made more than once: "you're
> seeing all this because you're maybe the first new
> application that really needs DNSSEC," or words to that
> effect. Should any of that discussion be reflected in this
> document? (I assume its not already there for timing reasons
> if nothing else.)
>
>   [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/current/msg04845.html

Q2: There's been another call to explain why section 3.1 says a 
validator MUST implement a BAD cache.  If nothing better comes up, I 
plan to just cite http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2010-02/rollover.html 
Is there anything better?  Or is there a short summary we can just 
copy into this doc?

And the changes I've made in my working copy of the draft.

> -- 2.1 --
>   signal that a zone MAY be using NSEC3, rather than NSEC.
> 
> This MAY and the one in the following paragraph are misused: they should not 
> be 2119 terms.  Describing what a zone "may be using" is simply a descriptive 
> phrase, not anything normative.  Actually, I would say "might be using".

Done.

> 1) Any reason you can't just refer to DNSSECbis as DNSSEC?  I guess does the 
> outside world know DNSSECbis isn't DNSSEC?

This is an artifact of the ages.  We started this doc just after 4034 
et. al. were published, and the WG still referred to them as 
DNSSECbis.  Given today's usage, we should probably make the change.

> 2) General: r/RFCXXXX/[RFCXXXX] throughout except for the abstract. A couple 
> of times I thought the RFC references needed to be included in [] so it's 
> probably better to just do it everywhere.  You also need to add [RFC2308] as 
> a reference.

Added the 2308 reference.  I'll leave the rest to the rfc editor.

> 3) s1 paragraph two: RFC 6410 got rid of Draft Standard so either
> r/Draft/Internet or r/from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard/along the
> Internet Standards track.    Or something like that.

Done.

> 5) s2, s2.1, s2.2: Could you replace the three instances of "should {also} 
> be" with "are"?  If the WG considers them part of the core, then aren't they? 
> It also avoids the whole question about whether it ought to be SHOULD (not 
> that I'm asking to change that).

Sure.  I used "are now" and "is now".

> 9) s5.11: could you just strike "note that"

Sure.  How about "This requirement applies to servers, not validators."?

Lastly, there is one open Discuss on the document, inspired by a 
GenART review.  Andrew Sullivan replied to the GenART review on the 
IETF list.  I'm waiting for a response from Russ Housley, and I'm 
hoping we can resolve that without more textual changes.  Feel free to 
comment on that thread separately.

-- Sam

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext