On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:11 AM, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, > please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may > receive. > > Document: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronyms-03.txt > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review Date: 1/15/2014 > IETF LC End Date: 1/23/2014 > IESG Telechat date: > > Summary: > Ready with issues > > Major issues: > None – it’s a simple, clear and useful document. thanks > > Minor issues: > 1. In Section 2.3 the I-D recommends that the values in reference > column for SHA-256 and SHA-512 refer to [RFC 6698] while the IANA > Considerations section in RFC 6698 recommends and the registry entries in the > TLSA Matching Types table > athttp://www.iana.org/assignments/dane-parameters/dane-parameters.xhtml > point to [RFC 6234]. Good Catch, fixed > 2. As this I-D updates the registries with a column for acronyms, it > seems more accurate that the reference columns of all tables mention both > [RFC 6698] and [RFC XXXX] (this RFC) I'm not sure if I agree, all this document does is to change the format of the registries it is not the definitions of any table entry. But I think it would be good to change the reference for each of the registries to point to both RFC6698 and RFCXXXX I propose adding to each registry sections the following text: "Update reference for this registry to include both [RFC6698] and [RFC-this-document]" > > Nits/editorial comments: > In the Introduction section: > ‘This document updates the IANA registry definition for TLSA > record to add a column with acronym for each specified field’ > s/acronym/an acronym/ > Fixed thanks Olafur
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
