Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-16

[Mohan Parthasarathy <[e-mail]>]

I read the draft and support publication of the draft.

Here are a few comments...

- Section 4.4 Insecure Delegation proofs last sentence is very
confusing. An example as to what attack this is describing would be
helpful to the implementer.

- Section 5.7 setting the AD bit on queries. Is CD=0,DO=0 in the query
same as AD=1,DO=0 ? If so, why do we need two ways ? I might have
missed the discussion on this earlier. If there is a valid reason,
that needs to be stated explicitly as to why we are introducing this
new option.

- The "Security Considerations" section says:

     This document adds two cryptographic features to the core DNSSEC protocol.

    Is this referring to the algorithms mentioned in section 2.2 (
which actually lists three)  or something else ?

-mohan

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> This message initiates a three week Working Group Last Call on the
> document draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-16.  LC will close on
> 2012-01-11 at 00:00 UTC.
>
> The WG's standard conventions, which require five reviewers who state
> that they have read the draft and support its publication as a
> necessary but not sufficient determinant of rough consensus, are in
> force.  Please review the document and post to the list any comments
> you have before the close of LC.  If you cannot meet that deadline,
> but are willing to commit to completing a review and can give me a
> firm date for it (and that date is within a reasonable horizon), I
> will announce an extension of the LC deadline.  I'd appreciate it if
> you'd tell me of this need sooner rather than later.  Specific
> comments are much better than generic ones, and specific comments with
> suggested text (if you find some text wanting) are particularly
> encouraged.
>
> Speaking only personally, this draft is the product of several years
> of WG work: the -00 of the draft was submitted in 2005.  Moreover, it
> is the product of a lot of heated discussion and careful teasing out
> of the issues involved.  I would be sad to discover that we could not
> find (rather) more than five reviewers for this document.
>
> I will be the shepherd for this document if it is sent to the IESG.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> [e-mail]
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext