On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Niall O'Reilly <[email protected]> wrote:
> At Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:06:06 -0700, > Paul Hoffman wrote: >> >> I did a clean read, and it feels *much* better than the early drafts. I have >> a small number of editorial comments, but some bigger questions as well. I >> strongly suspect the questions can be answered by small additions to the >> draft. >> >> At the beginning of 2.1: >> For ZSKs, the issue for the zone operator/signer is to ensure that >> any caching validator has access to a particular signature that >> corresponds to a valid ZSK. >> "that corresponds to" seem wrong here. The following may be more accurate >> (or it might be wrong...): >> For ZSKs, the issue for the zone operator/signer is to ensure that >> any caching validator has access to a particular signature has >> access to the corresponding valid ZSK. > > I can't parse the last sentence above and would appreciate > clarification. > > The noun clause which is apparently intended as the object of the > infinitive "to ensure" contains two finite verbs. Perhaps a > sub-ordinating conjunction has been omitted? Does the following help? For ZSKs, the issue for the zone operator/signer is to ensure that any caching validator has access to a particular signature also has access to the corresponding valid ZSK. Or: For ZSKs, the issue for the zone operator/signer is to ensure that if a caching validator has access to a particular signature, the validator also has access to the corresponding valid ZSK. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
