Thanks Pasi, I'll work with the authors to get their reactions back to the list and we can go from there,
Cheers, S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > I've done my AD review for draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-06, and I was happy > to see that the document is in good shape. > > I do have couple of suggestions, though. Basically all of these are of > "the WG members probably understand what this text means, but if you > could add couple of more words, future readers would be thankful" > type; that is, suggestions for improving the clarity especially to > folks who didn't read the WG discussions about the topic. > > Stephen, could you as the document shepherd take the lead in > discussing these and getting agreement on appropriate edits? > (in some cases, I've suggested a possible wording, but that's > just one starting point) > > Best regards, > Pasi > > ------ > > - Section 3.1: to some folks, "domain" means just a single DNS name > "example.com"; to others, it might mean everything under > "example.com". I think it'd be useful to give a concrete example > here, saying e.g. that an ADSP record for "example.com" (stored in > _adsp._domainkey.example.com) does *not* apply to emails from > e.g. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; to cover that, you'd need > _adsp._domainkey.www.example.com etc. (IMHO this is quite important > detail that isn't currently isn't very obvious from the document.) > > - Section 3.3, 1st bullet would be clearer if it said > "...no ADSP record is found" > > - Section 3.3, 3rd bullet: this would be easier to understand if you > copied the text from 4.2.1 definition of "discardable" here, too. > > - Section 3.3, 4th bullet: this would be easier to understand it > said "because it does not exist in DNS", "this is the case if > the domain does not exist in DNS", or something > > - Section 3.3, should mention the 5th possibility of the procedure in > 4.3: algorithm terminates without producing a result, indicating a > temporary failure. > > - Section 4.1 says the "Tag=Value List" syntax from RFC 4871 is used, > but it seems there's a difference: 4871 uses "[FWS]" around the "=" > sign, while this document uses *WSP. This is probably an intentional > difference (right?), but should be explicitly pointed out. > > - Section 4.2.1: Since the signing practice list is extensible, the > text should say how an unknown value should be treated -- probably > same as "unknown"? > > - Section 4.3, "Check Domain Scope" step: it'd be useful to explicitly > say something "NODATA" (rcode=0 with ANCOUNT=0), as if I recall right, > even some WG members were confused at some point... > > - Section 4.3, "Fetch Named ADSP Record" step: it'd be useful to say > here that if the result is NXDOMAIN, or NOERROR with zero records, or > NOERROR with records that aren't valid ADSP records, the result is > "unknown" (is that right, BTW?) > > - Section 4.3, "does not exist for mail" would benefit from > rephrasing somehow (perhaps "is not a valid email domain for > [2821]", or something?) > > - Section 4.3: would this be easier to read if you included a concrete > example (e.g. email message with a From line, and all the DNS lookups > done)? Or perhaps couple of examples? > > - Section 6.1, last paragraph: to me it seems the amount of DNS > traffic would be less than amount of SMTP traffic, so this wouldn't > be a very good traffic multiplication attack? (with multiplier < 1) > If that's the case, perhaps would be useful to mention? > > Nits: > > - Title: Expand acronym DKIM > - References: update RFC 2821 to 5321, and 2822 to 5322 > - Section 4.1, "the_adsp._domainkey" -> "the _adsp._domainkey" > > ------ > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
