[Add] AD review of draft-ietf-add-svcb-dns-03

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-add-svcb-dns-03
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

As usual, as the responsible AD for the ADD WG, I have done an AD review before the IETF Last Call. Please find a MD-formatted review below. Before going further, I am requesting the authors to act/reply/comment on all the points below. The end goal is to ease the rest of the publication process.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Action points from the shepherd write-up

Did the authors consider the point 1.g of Andrew Campling's shepher review ? See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-add-svcb-dns/shepherdwriteup/

### Shepherd write-up and DNSOP review

As this document relies on DNSOP SVCB document, it would be nice to be specific about any DNSOP WG review of this ADD I-D in the shepherd write-up. If no review were done, then I will request a specific review by DNSOP during the IETF Last Call.

### Abstract

"for new transport protocols." unsure what is meant by "new" in this context. Suggest removing "new" from the sentence.

### Abstract / Section 1 RR ?

s/The SVCB DNS record type/The SVCB DNS resource record type/ ?

### Section 1 reference to dnsop-svcb

In "Use of the SVCB record type" please add a normative reference to the dnsop-svcb document.

### Section 1 what about DoQ ?

Should DoQ RFC 9250 also be mentioned ?

### Section 1 add references to DoT, DoH, ...

Please add informative references to DoT, DoH, DoQ.

### Section 3.1 what about udp/tcp

By default, both DoT and DoQ use port 853... Should the transport protocol be added to the QNAME ?

### Section 4.2

To be consistent, also add a reference to DoH as it is done for DoT.

### Section 4.2 difficult to understand

To be honest, I have hard time to understand "This key is automatically mandatory if present. ", i.e., if mandatory why "if present" ?

### Section 4.2

Should "MAY" be used in "Future SvcParamKeys may also be applicable." ?

### Section 9

The IANA "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry does not have a "meaning" column.

## NITS

### e.g.

AFAIK, "e.g." is always written as "e.g.,"

Same for "i.e."

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments