[Gen-art] Re: draft-davids-forsalereg-18 ietf last call Genart review

[Marco Davids <[e-mail]>]

Done:

https://github.com/mdavids/rfc/commit/8aaf1d9d9bfc69684c402f8f640ec3ef35f4d129

Not yet published on Datatracker, while i await other feedback, but it 
is published here:

https://forsalereg.sidnlabs.nl/rfc/

https://forsalereg.sidnlabs.nl/rfc/draft-davids-forsalereg-19.txt

Thanks again!

-- 
Marco


-------- Original Message  --------
*Subject: *draft-davids-forsalereg-18 ietf last call Genart review
*From: *Russ Housley
*To: *"Marco Davids (SIDN)"
*Cc: *IETF Gen-ART , [e-mail], 
[e-mail]
*Date: *Thu, 4 Dec 2025 14:18:41 -0500

> The proposed way forward sounds good to me.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
>> On Dec 4, 2025, at 1:58 PM, Marco Davids (SIDN) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Russ,
>>
>> Thanks for your quick reply and the useful feedback. All good points, I’ll fix them in the next draft.
>>
>> About ACME: I meant the fictional Acme Corporation (used in RFC2377, RFC3183, RFC3224, RFC5229, RFC6020, etc). But you’re right, RFC8555 has made that name a bit confusing these days. Happy to change it if that’s better.
>>
>> On the “minimal set”: that can be as little as one "mailto:" URI. I figured that was obvious, but I’ll spell it out.
>>
>> The rest is straightforward, I’ll take care of those too.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --
>> Marco
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 07:19:33 -0800 Russ Housley via Datatracker wrote:
>>
>>> Document: draft-davids-forsalereg
>>> Title: The "_for-sale" Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Name
>>> Reviewer: Russ Housley
>>> Review result: Almost Ready
>>> 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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.
>>> Document: draft-davids-forsalereg-18
>>> Reviewer: Russ Housley
>>> Review Date: 2025-12-04
>>> IETF LC End Date: unknown
>>> IESG Telechat date: unknown
>>> Summary: Almost Ready
>>> Major Concerns:
>>> Section 2.2 says:
>>>     Content tags are optional.  Providing a minimum set to allow
>>>     interested parties to engage is RECOMMENDED.
>>> The specification does not define the "minimal set".  Without a
>>> definition, the RECOMMENDED phrase is not actionable by an
>>> implementer.
>>> Minor Concerns:
>>> Section 2.1 says:
>>>     If no TXT records at a leaf node contain a valid version tag,
>>>     processors MUST consider the node name invalid and MUST discard it.
>>> Discard seems like the wrong action here.  I think that you want
>>> processors to ignore such TXT records.
>>> Sections 2.2.1 and 2.5 use "ACME" as an example.  I suspect this has nothing
>>> to do with RFC 8555.  If that suspicion is correct, using a different
>>> example string would probably be helpful.  If that suspicion is not
>>> correct, please add a reference to RFC 8555 and provide a sentence or
>>> two of explanation.
>>> Nits:
>>> Footer: s/_for-sale DNS/_for-sale DNS Node Name/
>>> Section 1: s/mean it is unavailable/mean it is unavailable for purchase/
>>> Section 1: s/domain name for availability/domain name for purchasability/
>>> Section 2.6: s/can essentially be/can be/
>