Hi Peter, Thank you for your reply. Please find my responses inline tagged as [GF]
Regards, Giuseppe -----Original Message----- From: Peter Thomassen <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 3:52 PM To: Giuseppe Fioccola <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-05 (apologies for an early send) Hi Giuseppe, Thank you very much for your review! Responses below. On 2/3/25 16:23, Giuseppe Fioccola via Datatracker wrote: > I think that Appendix A on "Efficiency and Convergence Issues in DNS Scanning" > is quite relevant to understand the use cases that this document aims > to address, and therefore, it could be moved earlier in this document, > e.g. as a subsection of the Introduction. Appendix A indeed could be moved into the body of the document; however, as there have been arguments both ways and the WG ended up settling on the current location, we recommend leaving it as it is. [GF]: Ok for me. Thank you for the explanation. > I would add a sentence at the beginning of section 2 on "DSYNC RR > Type" just to introduce what is defined in this section, i.e. a new RR > TYPE for endpoint discovery. Done. NEW This section defines the DSYNC RR type which is subsequently used for discovering notification endpoints. [GF]: Good! >>From an OPSDIR point of view, I noticed that some references about the > deployment are provided in section 7 on "Implementation Status". Since > this section is supposed to be removed before publication, I would > rather keep it and summarize the main results of the implementation > especially with regards to interoperability and backwards compatibility > aspects. To prevent implementation-specific text from not aging well, we could replace Section 7 with something like: At least on open source implementation already exist and at least one TLD registry is currently implementing this as an upcoming service. However, it's unclear where that text could live (it hardly justifies its own section), or whether it would even address your concern. The authors would appreciate your suggestion. [GF]: It is also ok to add a sentence as you proposed, maybe in the introduction. As a reader, I would be interested to know essentially if the implementation raised any issue or not. Thanks, Peter + co-authors -- https://desec.io/ _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
