The proposed way forward sounds good to me. Russ
> On Dec 4, 2025, at 1:58 PM, Marco Davids (SIDN) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Russ, > > Thanks for your quick reply and the useful feedback. All good points, I’ll > fix them in the next draft. > > About ACME: I meant the fictional Acme Corporation (used in RFC2377, RFC3183, > RFC3224, RFC5229, RFC6020, etc). But you’re right, RFC8555 has made that name > a bit confusing these days. Happy to change it if that’s better. > > On the “minimal set”: that can be as little as one "mailto:"; URI. I figured > that was obvious, but I’ll spell it out. > > The rest is straightforward, I’ll take care of those too. > > Thanks! > > -- > Marco > > On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 07:19:33 -0800 Russ Housley via Datatracker wrote: > >> Document: draft-davids-forsalereg >> Title: The "_for-sale" Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Name >> Reviewer: Russ Housley >> Review result: Almost Ready >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just >> like any other last call comments. >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. >> Document: draft-davids-forsalereg-18 >> Reviewer: Russ Housley >> Review Date: 2025-12-04 >> IETF LC End Date: unknown >> IESG Telechat date: unknown >> Summary: Almost Ready >> Major Concerns: >> Section 2.2 says: >> Content tags are optional. Providing a minimum set to allow >> interested parties to engage is RECOMMENDED. >> The specification does not define the "minimal set". Without a >> definition, the RECOMMENDED phrase is not actionable by an >> implementer. >> Minor Concerns: >> Section 2.1 says: >> If no TXT records at a leaf node contain a valid version tag, >> processors MUST consider the node name invalid and MUST discard it. >> Discard seems like the wrong action here. I think that you want >> processors to ignore such TXT records. >> Sections 2.2.1 and 2.5 use "ACME" as an example. I suspect this has nothing >> to do with RFC 8555. If that suspicion is correct, using a different >> example string would probably be helpful. If that suspicion is not >> correct, please add a reference to RFC 8555 and provide a sentence or >> two of explanation. >> Nits: >> Footer: s/_for-sale DNS/_for-sale DNS Node Name/ >> Section 1: s/mean it is unavailable/mean it is unavailable for purchase/ >> Section 1: s/domain name for availability/domain name for purchasability/ >> Section 2.6: s/can essentially be/can be/ _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
