Subject: [Dcrup] AD review of draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage-04.txt

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:25:34 +0100

Hi,
The document looks good enough for the IETF LC, so I've requested it.

I have one small comment, which you should address (or at least discuss)
during/after IETF LC:

It would be good to say that Section 4.1 replaces Section 3.3.3 from RFC
6376. (I think 3.3.2 and 3.3.4 still remain relevant and are unaffected
by this draft).

Thank you,
Alexey

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 11:29:52 -0700

The first line in Section 4 already says this updates 3.3 of RFC6376.  You
think we need to be more specific?

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Dcrup mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrup
>

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:33:05 +0100

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017, at 07:29 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> The first line in Section 4 already says this updates 3.3 of RFC6376.
> You think we need to be more specific?
As I mentioned: I think sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.4 are still
relevant. If this document is replacing 3.3 and its subsections,
some of this is lost.
If you really intended to replace 3.3 and its subsections, it would be
worth adding "and its subsections" to the draft.
> 
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Alexey Melnikov
> <[email-masked]> wrote:>> Hi,
>> The document looks good enough for the IETF LC, so I've requested it.>> 
>> I have one small comment, which you should address (or at least
>> discuss)>> during/after IETF LC:
>> 
>> It would be good to say that Section 4.1 replaces Section 3.3.3
>> from RFC>> 6376. (I think 3.3.2 and 3.3.4 still remain relevant and are
>> unaffected>> by this draft).
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Alexey
>>

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:53:09 -0400

> 6376. (I think 3.3.2 and 3.3.4 still remain relevant and are unaffected

I'm reading (how I want to interpret it) the draft guidelines behind 
this document as an update to to the STD methods deployed, not as an 
replacement.

Thanks

-- 
HLS

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 17:11:31 -0700

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> As I mentioned: I think sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.4 are still relevant. If
> this document is replacing 3.3 and its subsections, some of this is lost.
>

The draft says "updates", but you're saying "replaces".  I don't see those
as the same thing.  What this document says is to my mind treated as an
overlay, not a replacement; read RFC6376, then read this for current
advice, then act.

If it's better to say this updates a specific subsection, then that's also
reasonable.  I just thought what we have is sufficient.

-MSK

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:22:32 +1000

Minor editorial notes to add.

The last paragraph of the introduction has a parenthetical that is
never closed (I think that the ")" belongs after "2007")

Though the RFC editor might catch this...when referring to SHA-1 or
SHA-256 (the algorithms, rather than the specific tags that are used
in DKIM), I would prefer to see the names capitalized with the hyphen.
I think that most instances of "sha1" and "sha256" could be altered.
You have one instance of "SHA-1".

Otherwise, this looks great.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:58:05 +0100

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017, at 01:11 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Alexey Melnikov
> <[email-masked]> wrote:>> __
>> 
>>> The first line in Section 4 already says this updates 3.3 of
>>> RFC6376.  You think we need to be more specific?>> 
>> 
>> As I mentioned: I think sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.4 are still relevant.
>> If this document is replacing 3.3 and its subsections, some of this
>> is lost.>> 
>> If you really intended to replace 3.3 and its subsections, it would
>> be worth adding "and its subsections" to the draft.> 
> The draft says "updates", but you're saying "replaces".  I don't see
> those as the same thing.  What this document says is to my mind
> treated as an overlay, not a replacement; read RFC6376, then read this
> for current advice, then act.I assume you are replacing the whole sections. If this is not what you
are doing, the document is even less clear and need to be clarified.
> If it's better to say this updates a specific subsection, then that's
> also reasonable.  I just thought what we have is sufficient.
Yes, please be specific. I couldn't be certain which sections are still
in force and which were updated.