Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension-06: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I think this is a useful document and I will ballot Yes once my small issues are resolved: 1) In 3.4: The first RRset in the chain MUST contain the TLSA record set being presented. However, if the owner name of the TLSA record set is an alias (CNAME or DNAME), then it MUST be preceded by the chain of alias records needed to resolve it. DNAME chains should omit SHOULD? What are the implications if this is not followed? unsigned CNAME records that may have been synthesized in the response from a DNS resolver. 2) TLS 1.3 needs to be a normative reference, but it is not even listed in References. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The first mention of NSEC3 need a normative reference. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
