Re: [lamps] [dnsdir] Dnsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-caa-issuemail-04

Corey,

On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 2:47 PM Corey Bonnell via dnsdir <dnsdir@ietf.org>
wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> Thank you for your review. Comments inline.
>
> > This is a very minor nit, but when I was validating the ABNF, I realized
> the proper order should have these two first
>
> My preference would be to keep the grammar as-is, for two reasons:
>
> 1. The current grammar is identical to that in RFC 8659 and reordering
> them would introduce a deviation between the two documents.
> 2. While entirely reasonable that production rules should be defined prior
> to being used, I don't believe that RFC 5234 provides any guidance
> regarding the relative ordering of production rules.
>

No this makes sense, I did not look at 8659 so bad on me.  I also was
thinking I should just hack up 'bap' to not throw the errors.

>
> However, I'd be happy to change the ordering if there are strong feelings
> that this should be changed.
>
> >    malformed.client.example     CAA 0 issuemail "authority.example;
> %%%%%"
> > If I read this correctly, the entire record is ignored.  Is this true?
>
> The record isn't ignored, but rather treated as if it contains an empty
> issuer-domain-name. In the absence of any other issuemail records in the
> RRSet, this would be interpreted as a prohibition on issuance.
>

Okay, so any part of a record the CA fails to parse the issuer-domain-name
is set to be the empty string (for that CAA record).

thanks and going over the text again also shows that.
then we should be good

thanks

tim

Thanks,
> Corey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Wicinski via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2023 5:51 PM
> To: dnsdir@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-lamps-caa-issuemail.all@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org;
> spasm@ietf.org
> Subject: Dnsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-caa-issuemail-04
>
> Reviewer: Tim Wicinski
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
>
> Reviewer: Tim Wicinski
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I have been selected as the DNS Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
> DNS Directorate seeks to review all DNS or DNS-related drafts as they pass
> through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request.
> The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the ADs.
> For more information about the DNS Directorate, please see
> https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/dnsdir
>
>
> I find the document well written, and easy to understand.  I have a few
> minor nits.
>
>
> This is a very minor nit, but when I was validating the ABNF, I realized
> the proper order should have these two first:
>
>     label = (ALPHA / DIGIT) *( *("-") (ALPHA / DIGIT))
>
>     issuer-domain-name = label *("." label)
>
> Like I said, very minor. (according to bap)
>
>
>
> A question on malformed parameters (Section 4):
> The text says this:
>
>    However, parameters that do not conform to the ABNF syntax as defined
>    in Section 3 will result in the issuemail-value being not conformant
>    with the ABNF syntax.  As stated above, a Property whose issuemail-
>    value is malformed SHALL be treated as if the issuer-domain-name in
>    the issuemail-value is the empty string.
>
> And you have this example of a malformed property.
>
>    malformed.client.example     CAA 0 issuemail "%%%%%"
>
>
> But what happens if this is the record?
>
>    malformed.client.example     CAA 0 issuemail "authority.example; %%%%%"
>
> If I read this correctly, the entire record is ignored.  Is this true?
>
>
>
> --
> dnsdir mailing list
> dnsdir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsdir
>