Wil Tan wrote:

(added the dane list in my reply)

Thanks for your review Wil.

My comments on draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey-02:

1) Section 3, in case of EAI, it should specify the character encoding of
the local-part on which to perform the SHA224 function.

That's a valid point. Should we say that it should be UTF-8 ? I will
add some text for this if I get a few more agreeing nods of people.

2) Section 3, it should probably reference RFC5322 instead of 2822? In fact,
would it make more sense to reference RFC5321 instead of RFC5322?

You are right, that would make more sense. If no one objects, I will
make that change.

3) Section 3.1, mapping should only be done if the software knows for sure
that the rules it is applying are correct for that domain. I suggest
qualifying the last sentence so that it reads:

   Software implementing DNS lookup for the OPENPGPKEY RRtype MAY perform
similar translation<del>s</del> rules while trying to find the OPENPGPKEY
record if it has definitive knowledge of the rules applicable at the target
domain.

I agree with the sentiment, although I'm not sure if "definitive
knowledge" about a "domain" is a fair thing to say, since there is not
RFC where an implementor could go and request such information about
how to get such knowledge of a certain domain. But I also have no better
alternative text suggestion right now. Anyone else?

Paul

_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane

Reply via email to