Hi, Viktor; thanks for the quick response, and thanks for making the changes.
>> -- Section 4 -- >> >> Protocol designers need to carefully consider which set of DANE >> certificate usages to support. >> >> I'm not sure why this (and the next sentence) is referring to "protocol >> designers". Is this not aimed at implementation/deployment choices? If >> that's not correct, who are the targets for this advice? > > This should likely say "application protocol designers". The point > being that the use of DANE TLSA RRs in a particular application > (as with e.g. SMTP) can be defined (more specifically than in > RFC6698 and this draft) by an application-specific standard. Ahhhh, of course; I get it now. Thanks for the explanation. Yes, maybe you can say "designers of DANE profiles", or "designers of DANE applications", or some such. Please pick the correct wording. >> I also find this section to be rather hard to follow -- I can't clearly >> figure out what the advice really is. Can you do a little reorganization >> here, separating the advice out from the explanation of why? I don't >> care whether you put the explanation first or the advice first, but it >> would help to have one paragraph that says, clearly and without fuss, >> what the recommendation is. This applies to the subsections as well. > > Will try to clarify, this will take more time. Of course, and many thanks for considering it. > Should the two > smaller changes above be pushed as -15, while section 4 is polished? I would say yes (revisions are cheap), but you should check with your responsible AD. Barry _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
