Subject: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis

From: Benno Overeinder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 22:56:26 +0200

The authors of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis recently posted a new version
-05 to the DNSOP WG mailing list.

>From the feedback on the mailing list, the chairs believe that all
feedback and comments have been addressed by the authors, either in the
draft or on the mailing list.

This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis

Current versions of the draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis/

The Current Intended Status of this document is: Internet Standard

Please review the draft and provide relevant comments.

If someone feels the document is *not* ready for publication, please
speak out with your reasons.

This starts a Working Group Last Call process of three weeks and ends
on: 31 July 2019.

Thanks,

-- Benno

---

From: bert hubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 23:41:54 +0200

> draft or on the mailing list.

With tremendous apologies for not spending a second on this draft earlier, I
do miss one sentence.  But first, let me state that I (and the camel) are
elated that this draft actually obsoletes documents and doesn't add
substantially to the pagecount, or might even reduce it (!).

The sentence I miss comes after this first paragraph:

   TSIG was originally specified by [RFC2845].  In 2017, two nameservers
   strictly following that document (and the related [RFC4635]) were
   discovered to have security problems related to this feature.  The
   implementations were fixed but, to avoid similar problems in the
   future, the two documents were updated and merged, producing this
   revised specification for TSIG.

   While TSIG implemented according to this RFC provides for enhanced
   security, there are no changes in interoperability. TSIG is on the wire
   still the same mechanism, only checking semantics have been changed.
   Please see section 10.1 for further details.

Rationale for this new paragraph is that it will save like 10000 questions
on if this TSIG is compatible with the old TSIG, or if software X implements
RFC9xxx TSIG or the old one, and if there is fallback etc.

I fully realize how late my suggestion is.

> This starts a Working Group Last Call process of three weeks and ends

I'm very much in favour of this cleanup and I applaud the authors for doing
the hard work to make it happen.

	Bert