Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis-09

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Suhas, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document.

Lars

On 2021-6-7, at 9:13, Suhas Nandakumar via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Suhas Nandakumar
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis-??
> Reviewer: Suhas Nandakumar
> Review Date: 2021-06-06
> IETF LC End Date: 2021-06-07
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> I am no DNS expert. However reading this document and related RFCs provided
> sufficient context to understand the scope of the problem to be solved.
> 
> This document is Ready with nits.
> 
> Major issues:
> None
> 
> Minor issues:
> Section 2.1 "Using the QTYPE that occurs
>   most in incoming queries will slightly reduce the number of queries,
>   as there is no extra check needed for delegations on non-apex
>   records"
> Do we need to be explicit about performance impacts here ?
> Wonder if the phrase "slightly reduce" could be characterized to that extent?
> 
> Section 2.1 last para might benefit with rewording/rephrasing. It is not clear
> from the context on the relationship between caching and happy eye balls query.
> 
> Section 2.3
> 1. MAX_MINIMISE_COUNT and MINIMISE_ONE_LAB - are the values for these constants
> normatively defined or are they just recommendations ? Can the same be
> clarified in the document ?
> 
> 2. What is the expected behavior in cases where the number of labels per
> iteration is still very high after division ? Do we need another constant
> MAX_MINIMIZE_COUNT_PER_ITERATION to ward against such attacks ?
> 
> Section 4.
> The section starts with query for "foo.bar.baz.example" and walk through refers
> to a.b.example.org  as query input.  Also no reference to ns1.nic.example seems
> to be appear in the detailed flows.
> Can this be updated it to match overall ?
> 
> Section 5
> "QNAME minimisation may also improve lookup performance for TLD
>   operators.  For a TLD that is delegation-only, a two-label QNAME
>   query may be optimal for finding the delegation owner name, depending
>   on the way domain matching is implemented."
> This para doesn't clarify how the performance will be improved.  Can it
> be extended with some context around the same.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Section 2.2 " So, assuming
>   that the resolver already knows the name servers of example, when it
>   receives the query "What is the AAAA record of www.foo.bar.example?",
>   it does not always know where the zone cut will be"
> ==> Can it be reworded as "So, it cannot be assumed that the resolver would be
> aware of zone cuts to know the name servers of example for the query "What is
> the AAAA record of www.foo.bar.example?"
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art