On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
First off, thank you for your review. I have integrated all of your changes, and think that document is substantially better for it. More inline. > > Document: > draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10 > > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > > Review Date: 13 June 2015 > > IETF LC End Date: 23 June 2015 > > IETF Telechat Date: N/A > > Summary: The document is well written, but I have some editorial > comments that I’d like the authors to address. > > Major Issues: None > > Minor Issues: None > > Editorial Issues: > > > > General > > ---------- > > > > QG_1: > > > > In the document text, you sometimes say “Negative Trust Anchor” and > sometimes “NTA”. I would suggest to say “Negative Trust Anchor (NTA)” on the > first occurrence (in the Abstract and the Introduction), and then “NTA”. In > section titles you can use “Negative Trust Anchor”, though, if you want. Done (in https://github.com/wkumari/draft-livingood-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors ) I didn't want to cut a new rev during IETF LC. > > > Abstract > > ----------- > > > QA_1: > > > The abstract text should be more clear about what the draft does. I suggest > to re-write the last sentence, and begin the sentence with “This document > defines…”, similar to the Introduction. > Done. > > > > Introduction: > > ----------------- > > > > QI_1: > > > > I suggest switching order of the first and second paragraph. It’s good to > begin with the background and justification, and then describe what the > document does. Done. I ended up splitting the 2nd paragraph before swapping them, because this makes it flow better. > > > > Q1_2: > > > > It is really difficult to understand what a Negative Trust Anchor is when > reading section 1. In section 1.1 you talk about Trust Anchors, but if a > Negative Trust Anchor is related to a Trust Anchor I think it would be good > to mention that already in section 1. Then, in section 1.1, you can focus on > the differences between a Trust Anchor and a Negative Trust Anchor. > Now that I've shuffled the paragraphs around, and moved some additional text further down, I *think* I have made this OK (section 1 is shorter and flows better, so I think it is fine). Please let me know if you disagree... > > > Q1_3: > > > > I assume sections 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 contain the motivation? If so, I think it > should be more clear. Done - I have created a "Motivations for Negative Trust Anchors" section and moved these sections into it. > > > > Q1_4: > > > > The section titles of 1.3 and 1.4 seem half-finished. Reaction to what? Not > recommended by whom? > As I have moved the sections into a "Motivations" section I was able to reword the section titles for 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 I think that this makes them more readable. Please let me know if you think they need additional changes. > > > > Section 2: > > ------------ > > > > Q2_1: > > > > I wonder whether the two last paragraphs belong to an “Applicability” > section? > Not sure. I made the change, I think is it better, but not sure. I generally prefer documents that do not have this many sections (and subsections) - I generally worry that people will see the Table of Contents, become intimidated and not read the doc. But, a: that might just be me and b: the people who need to read this document will be doing it because they *really* need the doc, and so will be willing to put in the time and effort. > > > Q2_2: > > > > The text starts by talking about failure and breakage, but it’s unclear what > failure/breakage. If that is described elsewhere, please provide a > reference. Fair -- I added "a DNSSEC validation failure" > > > > > > Section 8: > > ------------ > > > > Q8_1: I suggest to remove the “Other considerations” section title, and > define separate main sections for the Security, Privacy and IANA > considerations. > Thanks, this looks much better (I'm not actually sure why we ended up with the one big “Other considerations” section... Thank you again for your review, W -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
