Hi Warren, Thank you very much for your reply,
Best wishes, Ines. On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 8:18 PM Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 8:02 AM Ines Robles via Datatracker > <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > > > Reviewer: Ines Robles > > Review result: Ready with Nits > > > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > > like any other last call comments. > > > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-7706bis-07 > > Reviewer: Ines Robles > > Review Date: 2020-02-28 > > IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-28 > > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > > > Summary: > > > > The document is well written, it supplies appendixes with examples. > > > > This document describes a method for the operator of a recursive > resolver to > > have a complete root zone locally, and to hide queries for the root zone > from > > outsiders, at the cost of adding some operational fragility for the > operator. > > > > I have some minor questions. > > > > Major issues: None > > > > Minor issues: None. > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > Thank you for the review! > > > 1- Appendix B.5: it seems that the link is not valid: <https://knot- > > resolver.readthedocs.io/en/stable/modules.html#root-on-loopback-rfc- > > 7706> > > > > This link worked for me: > > https://knot-resolver.readthedocs.io/en/stable/modules-rfc7706.html. > > Thanks - not just for pointing out the issue, but also finding a > better version - as suggested, I am changing this (in a git branch > where I am collecting updates) to > https://knot-resolver.readthedocs.io/en/v5.0.1/modules-rfc7706.html - > I believe that stability is the most important attribute. AD, please > let us know if you disagree. > > > > > Questions: > > > > 1- It seems that this document replaces RFC7706, but the document states > that > > it updates RFC7706, is that correct? > > Oh, good point - once this is published, it does replace 7706 (it is a > bis, and contains all of the content from 7706), so Obsoletes is > better. > Thank you, changed. > > > > > 2- Abstract: "The cost of adding some operational fragility for the > operator", > > Does it introduce security considerations that have to be mentioned? > > > > 3- Section 1: "Research shows that the vast majority of queries going to > the > > root are for names that do not exist in the > > root zone." - Do you have some references to that research that can > be added > > to the draft? > > Hmmmm... I think that we missed this because, within the DNS community > this is sufficiently well known that we don't even think about / > question it. > There is quite a lot of research on this, but much if it is behind > paywalls - while almost 20 years old now (Gods, I feel old!), I think > that the best one to cite is still: > https://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2001/DNSMeasRoot/dmr.pdf ( > DNS Measurements at a Root Server ) -- I will add this. > > > > > 4- I would expand KSK to Key signing key (KSK). > > Thanks! Done! > > > > > 5- Should this draft add a reference to rfc8499? > > Seems like a good idea, thanks! I'm adding: > "Readers are expected to be familiar with <xref target="RFC8499"/>." > > > > > Thank you for this document, > > ... and thank you for the review. > > W > > > > > Ines. > > > > > > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
