[dnsdir] Dnsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-21

"R. Gieben via Datatracker" <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 14 October 2022 09:43 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "R. Gieben via Datatracker" <noreply@ietf.org>
To: dnsdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options.all@ietf.org, homenet@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <166574058881.4335.14880078378366427098@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: "R. Gieben" <miek@miek.nl>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 02:43:08 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/URuObx2sodOATOXl_JmDeeGZwns>
Subject: [dnsdir] Dnsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-21

Reviewer: R. Gieben
Review result: Ready with Nits

A straight forward document specifying dhcpv6 options, had little trouble
reading it. Got a bit lost with acronyms though, i.e. forgetting what ORO is
when nearing the end of the document.

Any reason why DNS over HTTP (DoH, RFC 8484) isn't standardized in the same
document?

A Nit (maybe): in section 4.2: "... defined by standard." -> "... defined by
standard action" ?

[dnsdir] Dnsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-hom… R. Gieben via Datatracker
Re: [dnsdir] [homenet] Dnsdir telechat review of … Daniel Migault
Re: [dnsdir] [homenet] Dnsdir telechat review of … Miek Gieben
Re: [dnsdir] [homenet] Dnsdir telechat review of … Daniel Migault