Re: [IPSECKEY] new revision of draft

[Sam Weiler <weiler@watson.org>]

Bunches of editorial suggestions...

-- Sam


Abstract:
...describes the IPSECKEY resource...
and nuke the reference, as someone else noted.

I suggest striking: "It will be a public key as only public keys are
stored in the DNS." 

Section 1.1:
   It is expected that there will often be multiple resource records of
   the IPSECKEY type.  This will be due to the need to rollover keys,
   and due to the presence of multiple gateways.

There will often be multiple IPSECKEY resource records (add: at the same
name?), due to the presence of multiple gateways and the need to rollover
keys.

Section 2.2:

Section 2.3:
change to "in the same was as" or describe the exact interpretation -- the
current wording is vague.

Section 2.4:
Needs to have generic text for any value, then the expansion for RSA and
maybe mention the DSA doc, but not in it's own subsection.

Section 2.6:
The first paragraph isn't a clear as I'd like to see it, but I don't have
suggested text.

wire-encoded
           ^
Drop the self-describing length mention (not necessary, since it's in the
reference).

Rather than "most commonly", describe WHY it should be that.

3.1
s/there/the/
s/should/???/  SHOULD?  MUST?

3.2
Make the lead-in text into correct sentences.  I'd omit the full length
key -- use a short key for demonstration, or abbreviate it somehow.

4
drop the 43 reference, presumably?
"public" algorithm field, huh?


-
This is the IPSECKEY@sandelman.ca list.
Email to ipseckey-request@sandelman.ca to be removed.