On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 9:19 AM Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 07:57:45AM -0700, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the > IETF. > > > > Filename : draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bcp-05.txt > > [...] > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bcp-05 > > I support the latest tweak to first paragram of Section 2, which now > reads: > > What we refer to as "DNSSEC" is the third iteration of the DNSSEC > specification; [RFC2065] was the first, and [RFC2535] was the second. > Earlier iterations have not been deployed on a significant scale. > Throughout this document, "DNSSEC" means the protocol initially > defined in [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and [RFC4035]. > > That said, when reading it through, it was not quite clear what "earlier > iterations" meant. Are these some hypothetical iterations that precede > the "first" and "second", or just the "first" and "second" (as > intended), or all three? > > To that end, perhaps a small clarification: > > s/Earlier iterations have/The first two iterations had/ > Alternative suggestion: s/Earlier/These earlier/ (Antecedents in English are one way to remove ambiguity.) One question about the third iteration itself that I have: Is the mandatory element "3" (the protocol field in DNSKEY record) related to this being the third iteration? It might be helpful to point that out somewhere in this document... Brian > > (The change from "have" to "had" aims to suggest that at this time and > hence any such deployments are strictly in the past). > > This is of course not a critical edit, adopt or ignore at your > discretion. > > -- > Viktor. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
