[DNSOP] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-03
Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani Review result: Ready 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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-03 Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani Review Date: 2024-06-20 IETF LC End Date: 2024-06-12 IESG Telechat date: 2024-06-20 Summary: This I-D is ready for publication as a Standards Track document. Major issues: 0 Minor issues: 0 Nits/editorial comments: 0 ___ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
Re: [DNSOP] [Gen-art] [Last-Call] [Ext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 8:34 AM Paul Wouters wrote: > On Sun, 17 Sep 2023, Salz, Rich wrote: > > [ speaking as individual only ] [...] > I would say that if the WG didn't think it was important at the time by > forgetting it, it probably is not an "important term", and I can see > this not being fixed in an IETF LC anymore as an acceptable outcome. > Dear Paul: That may be a selective interpretation. It could just as well be that no one remembered to bring this term up during the life of the I-D. Now, if a simple question to the WG on whether the document should include this term elicits a "no", then of course, the case is closed. On the other hand, if the WG returns a "yes", then it seems that the term should be included in the current revision at the expense of a couple of weeks of delay. Thanks, - vijay ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] [Last-Call] [Ext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09
On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 11:01 AM Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Sep 15, 2023, at 6:01 PM, Salz, Rich wrote: > [...] > > On the other hand, spending a week or two repeating a cycle to get an > important term in the current document seems like a better solution. > > If the WG agrees that this is an important term, sure. > Dear Paul and Rich, for what it is worth, the term is used in the industry and I believe documenting its use in a RFC will be worth the extra week or two to have consensus in the WG on a definition. Cheers, - vijay ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09
Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
Review result: Ready with Issues
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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.
Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 2023-09-15
IETF LC End Date: 2023-09-05
IESG Telechat date: 2023-09-21
Summary: Ready with minor issues. (It was fun to read this I-D, lots of
historical context. Thanks for putting it together!)
Major issues: 0
Minor issues: 4
Nits/editorial comments: 2
Minor:
- Global
- I am surprised that the term "Round robin DNS" is not defined in this
document. Is it worth defining? It is used quite a bit.
- S2, in the definition of "Global DNS", second paragraph: In the last
sentence of the paragraph, you use "octet" and "byte" interchangably.
Perhaps stick to octets as we are talking about a collection of eight
bits on the wire.
- S5, in the definition of EDNS, the text says, "...to indicate the version
number." Is there a EDNS(1) (or EDNS1)? I don't believe so, but it has
been a while since I was caught up on latest work in DNS. AFAIK, it has
always been called EDNS0, from back in rfc2671, RFC6891 continued with
EDNS0 instead of EDNS1. Is it worth to provide historical perspective
and say that till now, the version number has not changed since rfc2671?
- S6, RDoT and ADoT: I do not believe that rfc7858 definies these terms.
Is it worth referencing where these terms originated from?
Nits
- S2, right above "Private DNS:", please expand PTI on first use.
- S3, in the definition of QNAME,
s/this creates kind of confusion/this creates confusion/
("kind of" is okay for colloquial use, but not in standards documents.)
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
