Done: https://github.com/mdavids/rfc/commit/8aaf1d9d9bfc69684c402f8f640ec3ef35f4d129
Not yet published on Datatracker, while i await other feedback, but it is published here:
https://forsalereg.sidnlabs.nl/rfc/ https://forsalereg.sidnlabs.nl/rfc/draft-davids-forsalereg-19.txt Thanks again! -- Marco -------- Original Message -------- *Subject: *draft-davids-forsalereg-18 ietf last call Genart review *From: *Russ Housley *To: *"Marco Davids (SIDN)"*Cc: *IETF Gen-ART , [email protected], [email protected]
*Date: *Thu, 4 Dec 2025 14:18:41 -0500
The proposed way forward sounds good to me. RussOn 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/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME-cryptografische ondertekening
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
