-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On 2/17/15 3:01 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: > Matt, thank you for updating the draft based on last call comments. > I have verified that you seem to have addressed all the comments > that I noted. I like the new definitions you added they add > clarity, thanks. > > But I noticed some “strange language” I section 3.1 you say in > paragraph 2: For this specification to apply, the entire DNS RRset > that is returned MUST be “secure” … > > Well the word entire is redundant if you are talking about single > DNS RRset, BUT I think there are missing words i.e. the sentence > should be: > > For this specification to apply, the entire chain of DNS RRset(s) > that is returned MUST be “secure” … > > If the second interpretation is right some minor word-smithing in > paragraph 3 is also needed. > > Olafur as document Shepard > > > Thanks for the catch! The intent is the second interpretation. I'll get an update (which will be revision -11) out soon. - -- - - m&m Matt Miller < [email protected] > Cisco Systems, Inc. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJU47swAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1G50IAKgd6Gt4wbY4/vOWbzAhjWAV dEFF9+z58QFUJ2xJ1sW0x95w10py8iH1BvPyiZXA++x68fbNjiUly29cnHa8Csfq SunGRY36yOOLjSxLcADkN7lwYznNVJEjWF8tLyoh2I1kcu+jW5MLGCn88/twZe09 H0aK7NlW5+Oyant22DkdnPC7VRhp6YR64CdmPmI+JQrfM/MpTulzOROD0E/T3hfe lpjkh4i6Pxs7rEOx1Z7glci5RdzGE70QacuRt95s9/rn3ixoBI1w7y43eMWc/Xri JyzayGIyw0p7C1txBQhGxk8jgPOjDcQKt6blmBULu/rPdGmwkwEdwoXRhANR7hM= =a1JU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
