Peter: Thanks for the review. I've not read this document yet, but you review raises a question in my mind. If a DNSSEC policy or practice statement is revised or amended, what actions are needed make other aware of the change? Russ On Jul 14, 2012, at 9:01 PM, Peter Yee 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>. > > This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC. > > Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework-08 > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review Date: 14-July-2012 > IETF LC End Date: 17-July-2012 > IESG Telechat date: Pending > > Summary: This draft provides a framework for the creation of DNSSEC Policies > and Practice Statements. > > Major Issues: None > > Minor Issues: > > Section 4.4.5 discusses how to handle key compromise. It might be useful to > discuss here or somewhere else in the document how the compromise is > prevented from recurring if there were no attenuating measures in place > beforehand. That might well lead to a revision of the DP or DPS. The draft > doesn't really discuss under what circumstances a document should be > iterated or amended. Of course, that might be considered a meta issue > and outside of the scope of the DP or DPS proper. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > In Section 4.6, "behaviour" is spelt in the British manner. While > most assuredly not incorrect, you may wish to spell it in the > American manner. > > Serial commas are used inconsistently. Nothing as egregious as the > following > example, however. ;-) > http://grammarnowtips.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/a-case-for-the-serial-comma/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art