On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:57 PM, 神明達哉 <[email protected]> wrote:
> At Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:56:53 -0400, > tjw ietf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This draft was widely accepted in Singapore, and the chairs were waiting > for > > a revision before starting a call for adoption. That revision took a few > > months > > but it has been done and DNSOP is ready to start a call for adoption. > > > > This draft addresess the bug found in the existing RFC. > > > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-dupont-dnsop-rfc2845bis > > > > The draft is available here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dupont-dnsop-rfc2845bis/ > > > > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption > > by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. > > I support the adoption. I've already reviewed the draft and provided > (minor) feedback: > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg22063.html > > -- > JINMEI, Tatuya > > > I support adoption. In various places, like 4.3. TSIG Record Format, "resolver and server" is used which seems a little vague to me, since I use TSIG between master and slave authoritative servers, neither of which is a resolver. Would it make sense to use "sender and receiver" ? Or 6.5.4. uses "client" and "server" and that would work, if used consistently everywhere. 6.5.1. Key check and error handling Why is this only for a "non-forwarding server" ? --- Answer is in 6.7, A reference to there might be helpful. -- Bob Harold
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
