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

Jean Mahoney via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sat, 04 September 2021 00:29 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB6493A0B5B; Fri, 3 Sep 2021 17:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jean Mahoney via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: art@ietf.org
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.36.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <163071535768.12872.16291782186298428894@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Jean Mahoney <mahoney@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 17:29:17 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ZR6IyI0IeDhrtcJfDY99Bw-vHu8>
Subject: [DNSOP] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-12
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2021 00:29:18 -0000

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!

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.

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

Section 3 - transport.[TDNS] / transport [TDNS].

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'."

Section 5.2 - Expand the acronym KSK.

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.

Section 9 - fragmenetation / fragmentation

Section 10 -  Since DNS over UDP and TCP use  / Since DNS over UDP and TCP uses

Section 11.2 - [ROLL_YOU_ROOT] has a mangled author name and a TBD.

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] ".

Appendix A.8 - The verb tenses are mixed in this section.

Appendix A.32 - as a a / as a

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. :-)

Thanks!
Jean