Thank you Shumon. I’ll clear my discuss.

Take care.
G/

From: Shumon Huque <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 9:17 PM
To: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[email protected]>
Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>; 
[email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Gunter Van de Velde's Discuss on 
draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)


CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links 
or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.


On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 1:14 AM Gunter Van de Velde via Datatracker 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Gunter Van de Velde has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-06: Discuss

Thank you for your review, Gunter.

# In this review you find a simple to resolve DISCUSS and a general review with
non-blocking COMMENTs

# DISCUSS
# =======

# The Requirement's Language (BCP14) sections seems missing? I am sure this is
an accidental oversight. BCP14 text looks as follows:

"
1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.
"

I've added this to the draft revision in github.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# General Review
# ==============

## idnits point to a downref RFC 7129 (ISE stream) that is not in the downref
register. It was mentioned during LC.

I think the easiest thing would be to move 7129 to Informative References, which
I've also done.

# I am rarely working with DNS technology and hence i tend to get lost easily
in related acronyms. Would a terminology/reference section make sense for these
(NSEC, NSEC3, Empty Non-Terminal names, RRSIGs, etc)?

I've added a reference to RFC8499 (DNS Terminology) and included the
following paragraph, which also appears in another recently published DNS
related RFC (9471) to address this same concern:

   This document assumes a reasonable level of familiarity with DNS
   operations and protocol terms.  Much of the terminology is explained
   in further detail in "DNS Terminology" [RFC8499].

Shumon.

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to