Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
RFC 4310

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(David Kessens) Yes

(Allison Mankin) Yes

Comment (2005-07-07 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
David should add in the Protocol Quality section of the writeup that:

1. there was extensive review of the protocol choices and details of
    the spec on the dnsop mailing list though it was not a working group document
2. there is a full implementation by neustar, and it has been testbedded and
    demonstrated - a slideset on public demo can be referenced if you want

(Jon Peterson) Yes

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

Comment (2005-07-05 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
The document requests a namespace assignment of: 

urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.0

Would it make sense to consider urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eppsecDNS-1.0
or something similar?  We may, after all, have multiple XML-based
protocols that deal with this stuff, and early disambiguation may help.
Obviously not a problem for real protocol processors (since any namespace
string is distinct to them), but it might help provide early clue to those
looking for DNSSec-related XML namespaces later.

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2005-06-30 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
  Many references to RFC 4035 ought to be references to 4034.

  The public keys in the examples a very small!

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

(Alex Zinin) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) Recuse

Comment (2005-06-30 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
A comment on Russ' comment: the public keys are small because they've been truncated to fit page limits for display purposes.  That's described at the beginning of the document.