Thank you for your first (if not mistaken) review at the IETF: it is detailed
and I am sure that the authors will also reply to you.
Regards
-éric
On 12/10/2022, 14:26, "dnsdir on behalf of Anthony Somerset via Datatracker
via dnsdir" <dnsdir-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of dns...@ietf.org> wrote:
Reviewer: Anthony Somerset
Review result: Ready with Nits
Hello
I have been selected as the DNS Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
DNS Directorate seeks to review all DNS or DNS-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the ADs.
For more information about the DNS Directorate, please see
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/dnsdir
There are are clear and direct references to various DNS RFC's and this
draft is not in any major conflict with the wider DNS space but the
following specific suggestions relating to DNS are made.
Major Issues: None
Minor Issues:
Section 2 - Public Authoritative Servers
I would suggest that we don't specifically mention the resiliency
comments but instead point readers to the relevant RFC which looks to be
RFC1034 Section 4.1 to be specific, this is because RFC1034 suggests the
requirement is MUST and not SHOULD so would otherwise appear to be
conflicting
Section 3.2 = "SHOULD remain pointing at the cloud provider's server IP
address
- which in many cases will be an anycast addresses."
I don't believe its correct to include this assumption about anycast
addresses
and is largely irrelevant to the content of the draft so i don't believe
there
is value in keeping the text after the hyphen
Other Editorial comments and NITs please feel free to ignore these. Please
note that these are not exhaustive.
The intro is very long and talks about things that don't get explained
until
much later in document and could cause some confusion, it may be better to
make
the intro more concise and move some of these aspects into the relevant
sections.
Section 1.2 - to me this would flow better if it was its own section after
the
solution is explained
NITs
1.1 2nd Para says that "the HNA would then collect the IPv6 address(es)"
but
following para says "A device or service may have Global Unicast Addresses
(GUA) (IPv6 [RFC3787] or IPv4)..."
is the former a typo that accidentally excludes IPv4? and would it be
better to
say IPv6 and IPv4 addresses
1.2 - "Dynamic Updates solution are not" possible typos?
should it be "Dynamic Update solutions are not"
3.1 - Typo "Resolver as detaille din further details below." should be
"Resolver as detailed in further details below."
4.5.1
this section initially talks about communicating with the DM (Distribution
Manager) via an AXFR but then refers to the DOI in the same context as a
responder but they are described as different components in glossary - This
should probably be clarified
I think there would be merit in this going for security review
additionally.
My specific minor concerns about this is about the concept of having a DNS
service exposed to the internet on a CPE to enable the transmission of data
between Homenet Naming Authority and Distribution Manager.
--
dnsdir mailing list
dns...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsdir
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
