Reviewer: Susan Hares Review result: Ready Status: Ready comments: Excellent write-up Detailed Comment: I have read and re-read this document to find an error in the technical text. Congratulations to the authors. This is one of the few documents I cannot find any improvement in the base text. Did you check the text code snippet with a validator? If not, it is normally good form. My operational comments on this document are "meta-comments" for the Operations AD below ------------------- The security section starts out with the phrase: "This specification does not define the security mechanism to be used in the transmission of the dat escrow deposits, since it only specifies the minimum necessary to enable the rebuidling of a registry from the deposits wtihotu intervention from the original registry." Given this focus, it is difficult to determine if the data deposited is really the data that was on the original source. The language among the depositers is couched in "recommended" and "should". As a META question, the IESG reviewers should ask is the the "best" than can be done due to the on the legal constraints in the countries that the data registries live in. If so, it would be wise to provide a second document that provides additional suggestions for countries in which additional operational security can be mandated. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
