On 7/18/2018 8:37 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Section 3.2 replaces text in Section 4.1 of something, but I don't know what; the prior paragraph refers to multiple other documents. I suggest: (a) clarify which document's 4.1 is being replaced, and (b) don't bother including the original (replaced) text.
I'll add reference to the RFC being modified, closer to the modification text, but I'd rather keep the old language in there, to reduce the likelihood that someone will replace too-much/not-enough of the existing text.
I believe Section 4 can include a note to the RFC Editor to remove it prior to publication.
oh?
Section 5, as in the other document, is too terse. I suggest summarizing the fact that the only thing going on here is creating of IANA requirements on future work, and updating old documents to reference those requirements.
Same reaction as for the other document. I think it the change creates a 'form' of greater substance but not the substance of substance.
It doesn't allow a security reviewer to do a better (or worse) job and it doesn't demonstrate meaningfully greater security knowledge of the writer...
Side note: FWIW I am certainly concerned that this section be meaningful. When it was first required by the IAB, we were given no guidance about what to include and had no skill at knowing/guessing. So pro forma language, similar to what I've put in, was the norm. In most cases, it represented conformance to form but had no substance. However in the current case, I believe it exactly summarizes the issue for these documents.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
