Subject: Some comments on draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-threats-02.txt

From: Jaap Akkerhuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:10:25 +0100

In Section 2.1:

The terminology "monkey-in-the-middle attacks." is fun but shoudn't we align it with the usual boring
man in the middle?

In Section 2.6:

   that some day it'll be on the front page of the New York Times, even
   if we cannot conceive of a plausible scenario involving this attack
   today.  This implies that some mitigation of this risk is required.

Do we really need to name NYT here? "frontpages of news papers" might be enough.

In 4.  Other issues

   [Odds and ends that don't yet fit anywhere else, to be revised...]

Eh... Shouldn't this been revised by now? In any case, this sentence
should be rewritten.

In 4.1.  Interactions With Other Protocols

    ..... This topic needs further study.

and in 4.2 Dynamic update

   NOTE: Scaling properties of the key management problem here is a
   particular concern that needs more study.

There is recommandation of furhther study. I assume that this is
outside the scope of the current document.

Maybe start of Sectiopn 4 should be:

	In this section we mention subjets  which soesn't fit anywhere and probably need further
	study.

and then we can drop "further study" in the sub sections.

I noticed that in th conclusion it says:
    The authors would also like to thank Paul Mockapetris and Xunhua
    Wang, both of whom sent useful information to the authors, about
    which the authors have, as yet, done absolutely nothing.  We were
    listening, really, we just ran out of time before the draft deadline.

Are there any plans to do anything with these remarks?

Just my cents,

	jaap

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:15:07 -0500

Jaap,

Thanks for all the comments.  Glad to know somebody read it :).

All suggestions accepted and will be incorporated except for:

> In Section 2.1:
> 
> The terminology "monkey-in-the-middle attacks." is fun but shoudn't
> we align it with the usual boring man in the middle?

Equal opportunity for the bad gals.