[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[IPSECKEY] draft 01 nits



The submitted version should not have change bars.  Chalk it up to Natalia
downloading the wrong one, but it should be corrected.

Abstract should not have references (see ID-nits).

Abstract s/proposed to be//

1.1 /be authenticated DNSSEC resource record/be authenticated with DNSSEC/

1.1  terminal node?  What's a terminal node?  Do you mean in a terminal
node in the DNS tree?  Can't there be A records for example.com as well as
host.example.com?  Why not IPSECKEY records?

   Is class independent the right answer? 

2.  I'd strip this line, instead putting it the IANA section as I've done
in my draft.  Go ahead and put in the number so they don't get confused --
they can always change it.

2.1 strip the parenthetical, just put algorithm type in the
comma-separated list

2.2 Can you summarize the precendence interpretation?  

2.3 First paragraph.  Commas both seem out of place, or lacking a mate.

2.4 Should client handling of unknown formats be defined?

2.6 s/then public key/then the public key/
    s/RFC3110 to/RFC3110 extended that limit to/
    "for the purposes of encoding and decoding" didn't make sense on 
	a first reading.  Can you clean it up?

   You say "no such limit", but a two byte octet count, while huge, is
   still a limit.  Why not say so?  The rest of the text could be clearer,
   but it's verbatim 3110, so may as well leave it.

3.1 s/There/The/

   Should client handling of the root (.) gateway be specified?

3.2 "a node 192.2.0.38" is awkward and probably needs to be changed.  Why
not just drop the address from the prose entirely?  Even in the third
example, you could say "...to another node specified by IPv4 address".
"with the identity" seems like a bizarre phrasing.

The second example: again, what does the client do?  What does . mean?



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