[DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-08

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Mon, 27 March 2017 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 4B1FF129544; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
To: <ops-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.48.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149063698126.30570.4959246116267967756@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:49:41 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/xoZJjhzzUpBfM4jMVuqc5bMJbE8>
Subject: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-08
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:49:41 -0000

Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review result: Has Nits

I think would be ready if it passed IDnits. I found the document good
read and found no sinkholes in it. Pointing up two implementations was
also great.

The Proto Write-up seems not be up to date with what IDnits says e.g.,
when it comes to downrefs, which is what the IDnits complain about.

A couple of editorials:

Lines 118-119 says: "This takes this.." I would reword to something
like:
   "This document takes using NXDOMAIN information for more effective
caching further."

Lines 396 and 397 uses "is NOT" and "IS making". I would use lower
case here. No reason to use capitalized and still non-RFC2119
language.

Line 407 is would be great to indicate since which version of Unbound
support has been in place.