[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04

Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 07 February 2020 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A1921208F3; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 07:50:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, dnssd@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.117.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <158109060108.11593.18381186607321338415@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 07:50:01 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/5gQAzd3GZ0eUFosXJGwxSNgKYtY>
Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 15:50:02 -0000

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Ready with Nits

This is a combined genart and secdir last-call review.
Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2020-02-07
IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-12
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready (but with nits) for publication as an Informational RFC

This document provides a set of high-level requirements for a DNS-SD
privacy exptension, and discussion motivating those requirements.

Comment:
It might be good to call out in the discussion that while it is intended
to be thorough, it's not possible to be exhaustive.

Nits (editorial, in document order):

The last sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction is complex.
Consider breaking it apart.

In the introduction at "When analyzing these scenarios in Section 3.2",
did you mean Section 3.1?

In the first sentence of 3.2 at "the scenarios in Section 2", did you
mean Section 3.1?

At the first sentence in 3.4.4, at "online" did you mean "on-link"?

The statement in the second paragraph of section 4 is perhaps too strong.
Consider changing "will lead" to "are intended to lead".

The item numbering in sections 4.1 and 4.2 are messsed up.

The intent of the next to last paragraph in 4.1 and the last paragraph in 4.2
could be made more clear. I suggest something like: "When listing and resolving
services in current DNS-SD deployments".