[DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 30 August 2018 07:08 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 AF9771277BB; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 00:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis@ietf.org, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, suzworldwide@gmail.com, dnsop@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.83.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153561293370.3144.18070168241164270027.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 00:08:53 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/_Fueni_Mu7ZfoQFll8cLrKIkstA>
Subject: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 07:08:54 -0000

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for the time and effort that went into this document. I agree with other
reviewers that this document is well-presented and informative.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General:

The document seems to omit a definition for the term "class," although it is
used in many places an clearly has a very precise meaning in DNS parlance. It
would be nice to see one added, as I got a bit confused when I hit the
definition for "Class independent" in section 5 and realized that I'd been
conflating "RR type" with "Class" -- and couldn't find guidance in this document
to clarify the difference.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2:

>  Multicast DNS:  "Multicast DNS (mDNS) provides the ability to perform
>     DNS-like operations on the local link in the absence of any
>     conventional Unicast DNS server.

This definition seems to be a little oversimplified in light of the mechanisms
described by draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid and draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-relay.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§5:

>  Master file:  "Master files are text files that contain RRs in text
>     form.  Since the contents of a zone can be expressed in the form
>     of a list of RRs a master file is most often used to define

Nit: "...list of RRs, a master..."
                    ^

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§5:
>  Owner:  The domain name where a RR is found ([RFC1034], Section 3.6).

Nit: "...an RR..." (see RFC 7322 §1, CMOS 10.9)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§6:

>     The idea of a primary master is only used by [RFC2136],
>     and is considered archaic in other parts of the DNS.
>
>     The idea of a primary master is only used in [RFC1996] and
>     [RFC2136].

These sentences seem redundant and partially contradictory. I suspect the first
one should be removed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§6:

>  Privacy-enabling DNS server:  "A DNS server that implements DNS over
>     TLS [RFC7858] and may optionally implement DNS over DTLS
>     [RFC8094]."  (Quoted from [RFC8310], Section 2)

This definition seems incomplete in light of the mechanism defined in
draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acknowledgements:

>  The following is the Acknowledgements for RFC 7719.  Additional
>  acknowledgements may be added as this draft is worked on.

This feels out of date. Consider removing.