[lamps] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis-06
Qin Wu via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 23 May 2019 02:06 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1606812011B; Wed, 22 May 2019 19:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Qin Wu via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: spasm@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <155857717903.11139.12463391706861915813@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 19:06:19 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/BbESW7sLl6PZ15HdLwwjqtcBTNQ>
Subject: [lamps] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis-06
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 02:06:19 -0000
Reviewer: Qin Wu Review result: Ready I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This draft substitutes RFC6844 and defines the syntax of the CAA record and rules for processing CAA records by certificate issuers.It is well written, fix a lot of bugs in RFC6844 and simplify the mechanism in RFC6844, I believe it is ready for publication. Major issue: Not found Minor issue: Section 3, first paragraph: s/ CAA Resource Record set/CAA RRSet Section 4.3 I am not a DNS expert, Not sure why Wildcard Domain Name Is not part of RRSet in the several examples? Section 8 I think IANA should replace RFC6844 with RFC number assigned to this document in the the Certification Authority Restriction Flags registry and Certification Authority Restriction Properties registry.
- [lamps] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-lamp… Qin Wu via Datatracker