Hi all, Late to the party, but here are some nits/things on draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey-02. I have not read my huge backlog of the DANE mailinglist, so please correct me if I'm beating a dead horse.
Nearly all issues I have are mentioned in draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey-usage-01. On 03/09/2015 04:43 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > B: are you OK with the general document? A clear "Yes, this is good" > or "No, worst idea ever" would be useful. I'm very much on the "Yes, this is good"-side of things. 3.1: The MAY in the last sentence is much too weak. We can’t have interoperability without some stronger rules. Suggest moving this whole section into -usage or mentioning that these will be specified in a later document (-usage in this case). 5.1: Singling out one RRTYPE to push DNS-COOKIES feels weird. I'm just mentioning it, but as this section is merely a suggestion, it is fine. Appendix A: Two things: I suggest moving this to -usage and adding pseudocode examples. The latter mostly to encourage more implementations. -- Pieter Lexis _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
