[DNSOP] AD review: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 30 May 2017 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 716B21293DA; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.821
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.821 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LF5W3T-ovqwk; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE998128BB6; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7715; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1496157784; x=1497367384; h=subject:references:from:to:cc:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=0TbS+OBTxPT8Fh35vSLke2I2NKcoTH3ChVfRkkV9x9s=; b=Hn2IJlUhJqiTfdUqOxvjsAab8gnIUu3YRAKSYDmBtDhuFeAVnqFNGcSv sFoZiSjj7rOQXoMLZuV0Nt4xUXjsRPXlzGS/BUuOFU5pY1EQNlS5geLt5 jNJi9Os0pUj8gb2Zk4cT75Ohfd6iftgYzeCkijyruKdP8vmEW6fk2LsQX c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BGAwBojS1Z/xbLJq1cGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBhDeBDYNyiwuQVZBihTiCDy6FdgKDERYBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUZBAIjVhB?= =?us-ascii?q?NAgJXEwgBAReKDxCtA4ImK4sgAQEBAQEFAQEBAQEBARwFhmGBYCsLhxaDToJgB?= =?us-ascii?q?ZAphlCHKocgjAiLC4ZsjBqINCYBMIEKMCEIGxVGhwQ+NgGJUgEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,418,1491264000"; d="scan'208,217";a="653204827"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 May 2017 15:22:59 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4UFMxkl011294; Tue, 30 May 2017 15:22:59 GMT
References: <03bebcc5-ba95-9bbe-be07-6efb2034f9d6@cisco.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps.all@ietf.org
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <03bebcc5-ba95-9bbe-be07-6efb2034f9d6@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <38aae5ba-80d5-1f5c-0263-459de3ed7bda@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 17:22:58 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <03bebcc5-ba95-9bbe-be07-6efb2034f9d6@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------F237C2B3133E9D71C8F45FB4"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/_ndo2HnuCIfftGlYkJLbYMZpUPc>
Subject: [DNSOP] AD review: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 30 May 2017 15:23:06 -0000

Dear authors,

Here is my AD review.


-
    This section presents a list of problems that have been identified
    with respect to the assignment of Special-Use Domain Names.
    Solutions to these problems, including their costs or tradeoffs, are
    out of scope for this document.

    There is a broad diversity of opinion about this set of problems.
    Not every participant agrees that each of the problems enumerated in
    this document is actually a problem.  This document takes no position
    on the relative validity of the various problems that have been
    enumerated.  Its focused purposes are to enumerate those problems,
    provide the reader with context for thinking about them and provide a
    context for future discussion of solutions.

So you want to write something such as  ... regardless of whether the problems are valid ones AND regardless of the ownership (IETF, IANA, ICANN, or ...)
And it seems that you didn't try to categorize the problems per ownership (this is an IETF or ICANN problem, as an example).
I guess that this is the way you approached this document, right? You should document this.

-
gTLD Generic Top-Level Domain, as defined in in section 2 of RFC
7719 [RFC7719]

gTLD is not strictly defined in RFC7719, only TLD

- correct the .home section in 4.2.7, which is solved with Errata ID: 4677


_MINOR_
-

    [SDO-ICANN-DAG]
               Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Special-Use Domain
               Names registry", October 2015,
               <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook- 
<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf>
               full-04jun12-en.pdf 
<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf>>

Don't you have a more up to date reference (2012)?
First page of this document is: "Currently the namespace consists of 22 gTLDs and over 250 ccTLDs operating on various models."

-
    o  There are several Domain Name TLDs that are in use without due
       process for a variety of purposes [SDO-ICANN-COLL 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04#ref-SDO-ICANN-COLL>].  The status of
       these names need to be clarified and recorded to avoid future
       disputes about their use.

I don't understand the sentence "There are several Domain Name TLDs that are in use without due
       process for a variety of purposes", with a reference that speaks about "Name Collision in the DNS".


_EDITORIAL:_
- "in in". Two occurences in
TLD Top-Level Domain, as defined in in section 2 of RFC 7719
[RFC7719]
gTLD Generic Top-Level Domain, as defined in in section 2 of RFC
7719 [RFC7719]

- OLD:
    Special-Use Domain Name  A Domain Name listed in the Special-Use
       Domain Names registry.
NEW:
    Special-Use Domain Name  A Domain Name listed in the Special-Use
       Domain Names registry [SDO-IANA-SUDR].

- OLD:
    The history ofRFC 6762 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762>  is documented in substantial detail in
    Appendix H 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04#appendix-H>

NEW:
    The history ofRFC 6762 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762>  is documented in substantial detail in
    Appendix H of RFC 6762 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04#appendix-H>

- Expand SSAC on the first occurrence.

  
Regards, Benoit