[Dots] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-07: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-07: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis/



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

Thank you for the work put into this document.

As I already reviewed the original RFC 8782, I have only review the diffs
(thanks to RFCDIFF!).

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 3.1 --
In "that follow the present specification", the use of "present" is ambiguous:
does it mean current implementations of RFC 8782? or this specification (i.e.,
this I-D) ?

-- Section 4.4.1.3 --
I wonder why a port number can be used if the case of common/shared URI ? In "A
list of port numbers may also be included if there is a common IP address, IP
prefix, FQDN, URI, or alias."

-- Section 5.3 --
I am not a YANG module expert but using a union for 'lifetime' just to allow a
-1 value to signal infinity looks a little weird to me. Could the value
0x7fffffff be used for 'infinity' and keeping a uint32 ?

In probing-rate.current-value, there is a default value of 5 byte/second. Is it
useful to recommend such a default value ?

More generically, I wonder whether measuring in octets/second is more suitable
than in bits/second.

The 'alt-server' is now better typed as 'inet:domain-name' but I now wonder
whether relying solely on DNS in a case of DoS is sensible.