Hi Erik, Thank you for your review. Responses inline.
Thanks, David On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 4:38 PM Erik Kline via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: [snip] > Are any of the recommendations for client resolvers in this document > covered the IPR (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3077/) claimed for: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8305#section-7 > > (which has some similar/related recommendations, especially 7.3)? > I was also an author on RFC 8305 and IPR claim 3077, but I am not a lawyer. Speaking as an individual, I am not aware of any IPR related to draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa-15. Apologies for the disclaimer, but if you're trying to ascertain whether a specification is covered by a patent, I would suggest contacting a lawyer. Otherwise, I think this is basically ready, with just a few random nits > noted below (and ignoring the jeremiad-esque tone about the > design/implications of the middlebox protocol nature of RFC 7050 ;-). > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: > I have a PR that attempts to address these editorial comments here: https://github.com/StuartCheshire/draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa/pull/1/files > [ abstract ] > * 3rd para could be removed for brevity (but keep same in the intro) > Done [ 4.1 ] > > * Consider whether to including references to 1.1, 8.8, and 9.9 > services. I think the following might suffice: > > 1.1.1.1 https://1.1.1.1 > 8.8.8.8 https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/ > 9.9.9.9 https://quad9.net/ Done * s/is is/it is/ > Done > [ 6 ] > I'm not sure I follow the logic about whether/why ipv4only.arpa > must not be a signed zone. It seems to me that the concluding > paragraph beginning with 'Consequently, ...' actually lays out > the rationale in the most straightforward manner in this section. > > It's a nice TL;DR, but I'm not sure how to formulate a useful > recommendation for reflowing text to better highlight this. > I'm not sure how to act on this comment. Can you suggest text? > [ 8.1 ] > Consider referring to RFC 8499 for DNS terminology, if that improves > the descriptions of types of resolvers. > Added a reference to 8499.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
