Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extensions
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Jari Arkko Yes
(Lars Eggert) Yes
(Mark Townsley) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Ross Callon) No Objection
(Sam Hartman) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
Gen-ART Review by Eric Gray ... Last paragraph before section 3.1 (mid page, Page 6), what would be an example of "ill effects" mentioned in this paragraph? It seems to me that this statement could probably be more specific. Immediately prior to section 5.1, it may be helpful if the authors were to add a statement similar to the following: > > The format of these fields is described in the subsections below. > While this becomes obvious as you read on, it is usually the case that these formats would be provided in the same numbered section as that in which the format is depicted. I have no idea if I am correctly interpreting the first sentence in section 8.2. It looks as if there was additional text which was removed (perhaps another security related technology that is susceptible to eventual breakdown?). It also contains what appears to be a parenthetical explanation of why a breakdown in security occurs (but this is not very clear, because the sentence seems to end prematurely). And the opening phrase "As many ... eventually become insecure," appears to lack a corresponding closing phrase that describes the outcome, consequence or result of the opening phrase. From the following sentence, it seems that the intent was that the stated methods may not be sufficient. But that is not obvious. I suggest breaking this sentence up, or re-writing it from scratch. Nits: Last sentence of the first paragraph in section 3.2 (near bottom of Page 7): > > ... its set of IP Address(es). > should probably be one of: > > ... its IP Address(es). > or > > ... its (set of) IP Address(es). or > > ... its set of IP Addresses. > The pluralization of Address is not parenthetical as is (meaning it cannot be removed with no ill effect on the sentence) - hence it should not be parenthesized. Last bullet before section 4.2 (toward bottom of Page 9), I believe the phrase is "degenerate case" as opposed to "degenerated case"... In section 10, fifth line of the first paragraph, "thanks" should be "thank" ("... like to thank the following ...").
(Cullen Jennings) No Objection
(Chris Newman) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Tim Polk) (was Discuss) No Objection
There are two occurrences of "HPIHI record" in section 6. I believe that these were intended to be "HIPHI record" (based on mailing list traffic and old IETF presentations.) However, those presentations date from when separate HIPHI and HIPRVS records were used. A single RR is now used in the specification, so I guess the name needs to just go away. (Perhaps they wre missed in a global search because of the typo?)