Re: [DNSOP] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-12

Hi Duane,

On 9/7/21 12:48 PM, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 3, 2021, at 5:29 PM, Jean Mahoney via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>
>> Reviewer: Jean Mahoney
>> Review result: Ready with Nits
>>
>> Reviewer: Jean Mahoney
>> Review result: Ready with nits
>>
>> A well-written, easy-to-read document.  Love Appendix A!
> 
> Jean,
> 
> Thank you for the review and kind words.
> 
>>
>> Question about Appendix A.2 and Updates - Should this document also update RFC
>> 1536?
>>
>> Current text in A.2:
>>    The informational document [RFC1536] states UDP is the "chosen
>>    protocol for communication though TCP is used for zone transfers."
>>    That statement should now be considered in its historical context and
>>    is no longer a proper reflection of modern expectations.
> 
> Seems reasonable to consider, assuming a BCP can update an Informational RFC?

Any RFC can update any previous RFC?  There are some questions about the 
use of "Updates" (see draft-kuehlewind-update-tag); different WGs use it 
for different things. If you are trying to catch the eye of 
implementers, maybe it would help, but perhaps ask your AD.

> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Nits:
>>
>> General - Document status (Informational, Standards Track, etc.) should be
>> capitalized, and Standards Track is not hyphenated (There's just one instance
>> of hyphenation).
>>
>> Section 2.4 - 35%of / 35% of
> 
> There is an embedded XML comment in the source and apparently it renders inconsistently.
> I've added more whitespace so it should be fixed regardless.
> 
>>
>> Section 3 - transport.[TDNS] / transport [TDNS].
> 
> Fixed.
> 
>>
>> Section 5.1
>>    Current: "the steady-state of lost resources as a result is a 'DNS wedgie'."
>>    Perhaps: "the steady state of the resulting lost resources is a 'DNS
>>    wedgie'."
> 
> Yes, thank you.
> 
>>
>> Section 5.2 - Expand the acronym KSK.
> 
> Done.
> 
> 
>>
>> Section 7 - The Acknowledgments section should be located just above the
>> Authors' Addresses section. It looks like the names are supposed to be in
>> alphabetical order, but they aren't quite.
> 
> I moved it to the end of <middle> in the XML source.
> 
> 
>>
>> Section 9 - fragmenetation / fragmentation
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
>>
>> Section 10 -  Since DNS over UDP and TCP use  / Since DNS over UDP and TCP uses
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
>>
>> Section 11.2 - [ROLL_YOU_ROOT] has a mangled author name and a TBD.
> 
> The TBD is fixed.  The author names look fine to me, but maybe "M&uuml;ller" isn't
> rendering properly for everyone?  If thats not it then I'll need you to be more
> specific.

The issue is seen in the PDF: MÃ¼ller
https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-12.pdf

> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Appendix A - The construction "The [RFCNNNN] document..." (in A.3, A.4, A.5,
>> A.7, and A.13) reads oddly to me. Perhaps "This document [RFCNNNN] ".
> 
> Agreed.  These have been changed.
> 
>>
>> Appendix A.8 - The verb tenses are mixed in this section.
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
>>
>> Appendix A.32 - as a a / as a
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
>>
>> There are other nits I could pick more easily if this doc was in a GitHub repo.
>> They can be left to the RPC to clean up. :-)
> 
> 
> FYI it is in github and I have a pull request for your review at https://github.com/jtkristoff/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements/pull/8

I've reviewed the PR. Thanks for making the changes!

Best regards,

Jean

> 
> DW
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> art mailing list
> art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art
> 