Return-Path: X-Original-To: ops-dir@mail2.ietf.org Delivered-To: ops-dir@mail2.ietf.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D244C1B24A29 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2025 11:25:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.086 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4vQF05Ej9vin for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2025 11:25:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5994E1B24A22 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2025 11:25:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1744482299; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=6zWM+eaBkndcj1H6OVClDeX9NVOhRdy/roZ+DXt05nw=; b=SGDUXBL7IqcNSsVtkc/Eqp592Y4tZoIZuJC/LzGtCvKEs5wcD3j7GtgliTpFAetDV2X+Xs cgDCdCcqR+1IzXZTbcincGO5trSu3lhEncqDHqMLEjljSrrHgobLeQjFgdWDw7TX/JMCS/ rsbHDOPf+Folthhu5GZK6vBn1zwmhtQ= Received: from mail-pj1-f70.google.com (mail-pj1-f70.google.com [209.85.216.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-517-7ZEcscShNWq7b7fJwpjkTQ-1; Sat, 12 Apr 2025 14:24:58 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 7ZEcscShNWq7b7fJwpjkTQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: 7ZEcscShNWq7b7fJwpjkTQ_1744482297 Received: by mail-pj1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2ff8a2c7912so2363158a91.1 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2025 11:24:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1744482297; x=1745087097; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=6zWM+eaBkndcj1H6OVClDeX9NVOhRdy/roZ+DXt05nw=; b=Jo/1YX9E3OUSx8vkGDdTcp2dlYJOjog22ssmZvD0mtGlkcJpg/lYjotTRc4St5UJsp qKOM/WZyg4RsB2lFCZxMzUDMAQ0nwPBTINve0mZR4pS/YmCunJFqOdu7GNlTBczUinrF BAMkWjpQ9JcXtfCq1ONCNZotREVyDUNEED0T1eGw2C+3TCpvPyRdUqQKa5iaXdMFJqB8 6yOFk3hLWMDSwtxEIvL7W1p2VdBLBeZei3vNghzhsSi9eC/K51tC4lzo+nvJ6OLCVCub kR0Br9G5rIPyJxILOphJeNrsq4JvbuZxgvrEKWvK0rpZx0F9jdVYdOSyMCeUaPupN7jw 8OTg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyYUNXKBz54voBeXz7ZpvmthqlwdtnO3rDy7o4Y+b//j/D9Svwj AhcFDQn72Am/oSgsEt+mWRMN0ANRdrZj73gHurnFR+jxYkGO1q1Z0u/vk3XTI7Tfb+oRIu2CQ2a qSK+BK9aZbSKYPNiVbyV8chbbvJ6kE+GX7S8ifcrWSzIYKLm9HUwm+HcCSXC7sL2byBZqcnPNYq V+BcsPeSx4PmH6acT4nLPv+Ykd+Jn5uoY= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncv+QvbA7brQiqo/rtOnjwdZ/pSlcjp+OmjdPOaP14exhv8JGZ/KoVOTvoeBBey OgkSgpwqrYMUN1Mqpo/NugmAWvhYEKUDiYcPN4PlcR1Y45MOz0is/vlAdmH3ynfVqR92AXI7DMt DPVxit X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:2e44:b0:2e2:c2b0:d03e with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-30823633364mr9341401a91.5.1744482296615; Sat, 12 Apr 2025 11:24:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH97NDCS3Oq0NCPK0697be9+gYiHeWSTF5UAGeMH0wWoLsoGCy+oDSuxFfj3M7P0FIVRIoWN190pJfCNwXs+0g= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:2e44:b0:2e2:c2b0:d03e with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-30823633364mr9341380a91.5.1744482296177; Sat, 12 Apr 2025 11:24:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <174283278641.1583385.18217501041383528486@dt-datatracker-5b9b68c5b6-zxk6z> In-Reply-To: <174283278641.1583385.18217501041383528486@dt-datatracker-5b9b68c5b6-zxk6z> From: Nabeel Cocker Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2025 14:24:45 -0400 X-Gm-Features: ATxdqUFRmjvHascMMJfVuz48YXtINDY5ykHxrtFlBvoAQ9h6C0vfjkYtjzHlJcw Message-ID: To: ops-dir@ietf.org X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: mykZ4kMRfbuGMkeasqXn9hRhTuobGXMmW9W7lNOl0tc_1744482297 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000094bec8063298ef12" Message-ID-Hash: L3WLYOQ4II4NAM6OMIANZ6SZP625DMQD X-Message-ID-Hash: L3WLYOQ4II4NAM6OMIANZ6SZP625DMQD X-MailFrom: ncocker@redhat.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ops-dir.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis.all@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BOPS-DIR=5DRe=3A_For_Nabeel_Cocker=2C_Opsdir_Last_Call_review_by?= =?utf-8?q?_2025-04-21_assigned=3A_draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis?= List-Id: Ops Directorate Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --00000000000094bec8063298ef12 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I started my review of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis/ I couple of quick comments: Section 2: The last paragraph states T *he "Implement for" column values are transcribed from [RFC8624]. The "Use for" columns are set to the same values as the "implement for" *valu= es since the general interpretation to date indicates they have been treated as values for both "implementation" and "use". We note that the values for "Implement for" and "Use for" may diverge in the future However, when I look at Table 2, there are differences between the values in the "Implement for" and the "Use for" for number *5, 7, 8, 10 and 13*, Example in number 5 where Use for DNSSEC Validation is "RECOMMEND" where as the Implement for DNSSEC Validation is "MUST" |5 |RSASHA1 |NOT |*RECOMMEND*ED|NOT *|MUST * | | | |RECOMMENDED| |RECOMMENDED| | Is this intentionaly? And if so, why (perhaps it is mentioned by I missed the reasoning? Many thanks Nabeel On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 12:19=E2=80=AFPM Carlos Pignataro via Datatracker < noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > Last Call review of: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis (no specific version) > Deadline: 2025-04-21 > Pages: 14 > Requested by: Carlos Pignataro > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis/reviewreque= st/21828/login/ > > Carlos Pignataro has assigned Nabeel Cocker as a reviewer for this > document. > > > > > > --=20 *Nabeel Cocker* Senior Principal Architect, Global Telco Consulting Practice M: +1-845-240-2587 Email: ncocker@redhat.com --00000000000094bec8063298ef12 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I couple of quick comments:

Sec= tion 2:
The last paragraph=C2=A0states
=C2=A0The "Imp= lement for" column values are transcribed from
=C2=A0 =C2=A0[RFC862= 4].=C2=A0 The "Use for" columns are set to the same values as the=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0"implement for" values since the general int= erpretation to date
=C2=A0 =C2=A0indicates they have been treated as val= ues for both "implementation"
=C2=A0 =C2=A0and "use"= .=C2=A0 We note that the values for "Implement for" and "Use= for"
=C2=A0 =C2=A0may diverge in the future

However, when I look at Table 2, there are difference= s between the values in the "Implement for" and the "Use for= " for number 5, 7, 8, 10 and 13, Example in number 5 where Use = for DNSSEC Validation is "RECOMMEND" where as the Implement for D= NSSEC Validation is "MUST"

=C2=A0 =C2=A0|5 |RS= ASHA1 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|NOT =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|RECOMM= ENDED|NOT =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0|MUST =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = |
=C2=A0 =C2=A0| =C2=A0| =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 |RECOMMENDED| =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |RECOMMENDED| =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 |

Is this intentionaly? And if so, why (perhaps it= is mentioned by I missed the reasoning?
Many thanks
Nabeel


On Mon, Mar 24,= 2025 at 12:19=E2=80=AFPM Carlos Pignataro via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

Last Call review of: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis (no specific version)
Deadline: 2025-04-21
Pages: 14
Requested by: Carlos Pignataro

https://data= tracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis/reviewrequest/21828/login= /

Carlos Pignataro has assigned Nabeel Cocker as a reviewer for this document= .







--
Nabeel = Cocker
Senior Principal Architect, Global Tel= co Consulting=C2=A0Practice

M: +1-845-240-2587=C2=A0 =C2=A0

Emai= l: ncocker@redhat.c= om=C2=A0

--00000000000094bec8063298ef12--