@Oli: See below for suggested change in Section 4.2.1.
Hi Sarah, Sandy,
First, thanks a lot for the editing!
On 9/6/25 06:36, [email protected] wrote:
Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
-->
Delegation
Automation
DS
DNSSEC
2) <!-- [rfced] How may "unreasonable" be clarified? We ask because we
aren't sure if this will be completely clear to the reader.
Current:
However, when the outgoing query occurs via encrypted transport, some
amplification is possible, both with respect to bandwidth and
computational burden. In this case, the usual principle of bounding
the work applies, even under unreasonable events.
-->
OLD
even under unreasonable events.
NEW
even under unforeseen circumstances.
3) <!-- [rfced] Is it correct that the Scheme and Mneumonic are tied
together, so registrations with the same mneumonic would have the same
scheme value? We ask because RRtypes CDS and CSYNC both display "1" in the
Scheme column in the "DSYNC: Location of Synchronization Endpoints"
registry.
Also, is it correct that the Scheme column is the range of code points
available for assignment (i.e., a separate column for values is not
needed)?
Original:
* Point squatting should be discouraged. Reviewers are encouraged
to get sufficient information for registration requests to ensure
that the usage is not going to duplicate one that is already
registered and that the point is likely to be used in deployments.
The code points tagged as "Private Use" are intended for testing
purposes and closed environments. Code points in other ranges
should not be assigned for testing.
From the IANA registry
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#dsync-location-of-synchronization-endpoints>
RRtype Scheme Mnemonic Purpose
0 Null scheme (no-op)
CDS 1 NOTIFY Delegation management
CSYNC 1 NOTIFY Delegation management
2-127 Unassigned
128-255 Reserved for Private Use
-->
Your suspicion is correct.
Suggesting two changes:
- We can merge the Scheme and Mnemonic columns, to read "Scheme (Mnemonic)" with values like
"0", "1 (NOTIFY)" etc.
- In the Expert Review instructions:
OLD
identify what the point is being used for.
NEW
identify what the point is being used for. A scheme number may
optionally have exactly one mnemonic.
4) <!-- [rfced] "a secondary checking frequently for new versions of a zone,
and infrequent checking" is hard to parse. Perhaps this can be clarified?
Original:
[RFC1996] addressed the
optimization of the time-and-cost trade-off between a secondary
checking frequently for new versions of a zone, and infrequent
checking, by replacing scheduled scanning with the more efficient
NOTIFY mechanism.
Perhaps A:
[RFC1996] addressed the
optimization of the time-and-cost trade-off between a secondary server
frequently checking for new versions of a zone and infrequent checks by
replacing scheduled scanning with the more efficient NOTIFY mechanism.
-->
That sounds good to me.
5) <!-- [rfced] Would you like to add some text to indicate that "the authors
acknowledge the contributions and reviews of the following individuals, listed
in order of date received" or similar?
Original:
In order of first contribution or review: ...
-->
NEW
The authors acknowledge the contributions and reviews of the following
individuals (in order of their first contribution or review):
Also, please let's add Geoff Huston to the list (after Warren Kumari), and Oli Schacher
(at the very end, moving the "and" around as needed).
6) <!-- [rfced] May we expand "DS" and "NS" as Delegation Signer and Name
Server upon first usage for clarity?
FYI - we added the expansion "Fully Qualified Domain Name" for FQDN. Please
let us know if this is objectionable.
-->
FQDN expansion is fine, DS and NS is typically not expanded in DNS-related
documents (and my impression is that it would be confusing).
7) <!-- [rfced] For consistency, should "Notify" be "NOTIFY" in the
Appendix? We ask because the term is fully capitalized throughout the
document, excluding the Appendix section.
-->
Sure.
8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed.
In addition, please consider whether "traditional" and "native" should be
updated for clarity. While the NIST website
<https://web.archive.org/web/20250214092458/https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1>
indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.
These are subjective terms, as they may mean the same thing for everyone.
Note that updates of this nature typically result in more precise language,
which is helpful for readers.
Current A:
Traditional DNS notifications [RFC1996], which are here referred to
as "NOTIFY(SOA)", are sent from a primary server to a secondary
server, to minimize the latter's convergence time to a new version of
the zone.
Current B:
The basic idea was to augment
the traditional "pull" mechanism (a periodic SOA query) with a "push"
mechanism (a Notify) for a common case that was otherwise very
inefficient (due to either slow convergence or wasteful and overly
frequent scanning of the primary for changes).
Current C:
This
opens up the possibility of having an arbitrary party (e.g., a side-
car service) send the notifications, enabling this functionality even
before the emergence of native support in nameserver software.
-->
Instead of "native" (C), please use "built-in".
I have no suggestion for how to replace "traditional" (A and B).
I also have some further corrections/suggestions:
Section 3:
OLD (current, after RFC editing)
It is RECOMMENDED that zones containing DSYNC records with DNSSEC be
secure.
NEW
It is RECOMMENDED that zones containing DSYNC records be secured with
DNSSEC.
Section 3.1:
OLD (current, after RFC editing)
parent operator wants to forward notifications
NEW
parent operator wants to relay notifications
(Rationale: it's not forwarding, as the parent doesn't see the notifications.
This is an editorial oversight by the authors.)
Section 4.2
OLD (current, after RFC editing)
Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that the child delay sending notifications
NEW
Therefore, the child SHOULD delay sending notifications
(Rationale: currently, one may read "child delay" as a noun)
Section 4.2.1
OLD (current, after RFC editing)
When including this EDNS0 option, its agent domain
NEW
When including this EDNS0 option, the second label (QTYPE) of the report
query name is equal to the qtype received in the NOTIFY message.
Its agent domain
(Rationale: This was obvious, but technically underspecified. Better be
explicit.)
At the end of this section, add (upon suggestion of Oli Schacher (cc)):
NEW
For example, when receiving a NOTIFY(CDS) message for example.com with
agent domain errors.ns1.example.net, and the requested DS update is
found to break thedelegation, then the following report query may be
made (preferably over TCP):
```[monospace]
qname: _er.59.example.com.6._er.errors.ns1.example.net.
qtype: TXT
```
To convey additional textual information, the report query itself MAY
include an Extended DNS Error EDNS0 Option[RFC8914] with an EXTRA-TEXT
field, and with the INFO-CODE field set to the EDE code included in the
report query qname (in this example, 6: DNSSEC Bogus).
This change uses a previously undefined abbreviation, so when including this,
please also make the following change in the same section:
OLD
appropriate extended DNS error code
NEW
appropriate extended DNS error (EDE) code
(Rationale: This example defines nothing new, and is constructed directly by
collecting information from RFC 9567 and RFC 8914. It may however be easier for
readers to see that information applied to the case at hand directly.)
Appendix A.2
OLD (current, after RFC editing)
[DNSSEC-AUTO]
NEW
[RFC8901]
(Rationale: the DNSSEC-AUTO draft was anticipated to be published before this
but was not; the currently correct informative reference therefore is RFC 8901.)
Pending the above, I approve this RFC for publication.
Best,
Peter
Thank you.
Sarah Tarrant and Sandy Ginoza
RFC Production Center
On Sep 5, 2025, at 9:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/09/05
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
* [email protected] (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
* [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
[email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9859.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9859.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9859.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9859.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9859-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9859-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9859-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9859
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC 9859 (draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-09)
Title : Generalized DNS Notifications
Author(s) : J. Stenstam, P. Thomassen, J. Levine
WG Chair(s) : Benno Overeinder, Ond?ej Surý
Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani
--
Like our community service? 💛
Please consider donating at
https://desec.io/
deSEC e.V.
Möckernstraße 74
10965 Berlin
Germany
Vorstandsvorsitz: Nils Wisiol
Registergericht: AG Berlin (Charlottenburg) VR 37525
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
