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

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 20, 2012, at 12:49 AM, Andrew Sullivan 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.  


I have reviewed the document and support its publication (regardless of the outcome of the Section 5.9 discussions).

Nits: 
Multiple times I read "Section 4 - Security Concerns" as "Security Considerations" (probably because I am conditioned to see "Security Considerations" :-P). I'd personally like it to be reworded ("Considerations Relating to Security"?), but not enough to care (I suspect that I'm the only one who misread this...)

Section 5.11
O: "The pressence of an algorithm in a zone's DS or DNSKEY RRset"
P: "The presence of an algorithm in a zone's DS or DNSKEY RRset"
C: Spello.

Appendix B, Model 1.
O: "This model is so named because the validating resolver sets the CD bit on queries it makes reegardless of whether it has a covering trust anchor for the query."
O: "This model is so named because the validating resolver sets the CD bit on queries it makes regardless of whether it has a covering trust anchor for the query."
C: Spello.


> 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.

As it "is the product of a lot of heated discussion and careful teasing out of the issues involved" perhaps some of that can count towards review (if needed)?

W


> 
> 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