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

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Tue, 24 August 2021 10:40 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1697E3A20FB; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 03:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 GwTL-uhbt0q6; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 03:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D0973A20B9; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 03:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:1815:5480:b768:b865]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4E98600373; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 13:39:41 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1629801582; bh=1fORfaErjsgKK91A9TLmeG1qi8OmtAQ9H+9fHxjWCzA=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=eYgfzcSnRmOwM8FMeQRRjGhE1vxyBTabpkIVmXL4KfZC49D7mYpGq0VoRQ+XXI1JJ W/5t9x6+BneJuhcHB855xHaXd9GDgHE93+dD9Ypg55pJoEe85UxJTn5fFeglJRapbO PdCoXdspoGzXWMTGUX9U8keYXxwmV88s1mveHOHI=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <6E77A7A7-A79D-4451-9CAB-47AFA5CDE4AD@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8F05F354-EFD8-4234-95A8-F7D2D6079AE5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 13:39:40 +0300
In-Reply-To: <162304640334.30281.17125627583762005846@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, last-call@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis.all@ietf.org
To: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
References: <162304640334.30281.17125627583762005846@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: E4E98600373.A2B82
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/1u3Da-8HlUYuAZYNBisLRDhPf20>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis-09
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:40:08 -0000

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 <noreply@ietf.org> 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?"quot;,
>   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
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art