At 03:03 PM 1/25/2007, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers-05.txt
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers-05.txt
Title: Automated Updates of DNSSEC Trust Anchors
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Review Date: January 26, 2007
IESG Telechat date: January 29, 2007
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has
nits that should be fixed before publication.
This document describes a mechanism where a resolver can
update the trust anchors (= name + key) for a given trust
point in an automated fashion.
Substantive comments below, followed by nits:
* The last paragraph of S2.1 appears to point to an example
in S2.2. If so, it may be best to move that paragraph into
S2.2.
Nope... it points to the example in the current (S2.1) section.
* In S2.3, it may be helpful to derive an equation in the first
paragraph, much as done in the second paragraph. This will
help implementors tremendously. I think the appropriate
equation should be as follows (please do double-check):
queryInterval = MIN (1 hr,
MIN(15 days, 1/2*OrigTTL,
1/2*RRSIGExpirationInterval))
OK - but the formula is
queryInterval = MAX(1 hr, MIN (15 days, 1/2*OrigTTL,
1/2*RRSigExpirationInterval))
* Need body for the reference [msj2].
Actually - no - that was a CREF comment that will fall out when this
is formatted as an RFC. I'll remove it with the nits though.
* I note that this document is an Informational, but it
contains IANA considerations. I am not up to speed on IETF
regulations about whether Informationals can contain IANA
considerations or not...
The document is actually a standards track document.
Nits:
* S1, third paragraph:
s/manage this many/manage these many
OK
s/herein/here
No - herein is correct
s/e.g. Consider/e.g., consider
OK - but its actually E.g., consider
* S1, fourth paragraph:
s/they should be/these should be
OK - I believe either is correct, but I'll make the change.
* S2, first paragraph:
s/see [RFC4034]section/see [RFC4034] section
OK
* S2.3, first paragraph:
s/(e.g. do a/(e.g., do a
OK - fill fix missing commas here and other places
* S4.2, first paragraph:
s/(e.g. KeyRem/(e.g., KeyRem
Yup.
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
2701 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9F-546, Lisle, Illinois 60532 (USA)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED],bell-labs.com,acm.org}
WWW: http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bell-labs
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
