Anne-Marie
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message -----
From: "Russ Housley" <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Peter Yee" <peter@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gen-art@xxxxxxxx" <gen-art@xxxxxxxx>, "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework-08
Date: Sun, Jul 15, 2012 18:39
From: "Russ Housley" <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Peter Yee" <peter@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gen-art@xxxxxxxx" <gen-art@xxxxxxxx>, "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework-08
Date: Sun, Jul 15, 2012 18:39
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
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