[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-04

[Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
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-attrleaf-fix-04
Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
Review Date: 2018-09-24
IETF LC End Date: 2018-09-25
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
fixed before publication.

Major issues:

N/A

Minor issues:

N/A

Nits/editorial comments:

I give some proposal for clarification here, feel free to take them or leave
them. The idnits tool however produced several output, I would suggest to fix
those before publication.

   The use of underscored node names is specific to each RRTYPE that is
   being scoped.

As an non-expert in the area, I would have appreciate a ref to a document
introducing RRTYPE.

   This section provides a generic approach for changes to existing
   specifications that define straightforward use of underscored node
   names, when scoping the use of a "TXT" RRset.

Same for "TXT" RRset.

   An effort has been made to locate existing drafts that
   do this, register the global underscored names, and list them in this
   document.

Since the effort has been done, I would have appreciated the full list here.

   An
   effort has been made to locate existing drafts that do this, register
   the global underscored names, and list them in this document.

Same as previous comment.

   An effort has been made to locate
   existing drafts that do this and register the associated 'protocol'
   names.

Same as previous.

3.1. and 3.2. is the formatting of the updated sections (after "And is to be
updated to the new text:") wanted? Why not use the same format as in 3.3., with
OLD and NEW?

   +  Those registered by IANA in the "Service Name and Transport
            Protocol Port Number Registry [RFC6335]"

Move the end quote after Registry.

   +  Those listed in "Enumservice Registrations [RFC6117].

Missing end quote after Registrations.

   " Signaling Trust Anchor Knowledge in DNS Security Extensions

Remove the space after the quote.

 John Levine, Bob Harold, Joel Jaeggli, Ond&#345;ej Sury and Paul

In Acknowledgements, one name is not encoded correctly.

>From running the idnits tool (https://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/), several
comments, warnings and one error were raised, which I snipped and pasted below
as a summary:

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC****, but the
  abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. (see
  https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist) --> I see that the abstract generally
  mentions "the existing specifications that use underscore naming", but I
  think to make this correct, it should explicitely list them as well.

  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work (See the
  Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more
  information.)

  == Unused Reference: several documents are included in the list of
  references, but no explicit reference was found in the text --> if my
  editorial comments are taken, they should fix this one.

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7553

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3921
     (Obsoleted by RFC 6121)