Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[email protected]> writes: Hi Francesca,
> Before reading Alvaro's comment, I was going to bring up that the following > paragraph in Section 3.2 could be confusing for a reader who is aware of the > "Updates" RFC header. > > Note that this specification updates [RFC5155] by significantly > decreasing the requirements originally specified in Section 10.3 of > [RFC5155]. See the Security Considerations for arguments on how to > handle responses with non-zero iteration count. > > I see that Alvaro is questioning if this doc should actually update 5155, I > personally don't have a strong opinion, and don't think it is absolutely > necessary, although I am curious to hear if there has been discussion in the > community about it. In any case I think it would be good to rephrase the above > paragraph to avoid saying that this doc updates 5155 when it doesn't. I think all of these issues have been taken care by adding an Updates clause, and mentioned in other threads. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
