[Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res-06
"Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortel.com> Mon, 24 July 2006 18:47 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G55Sk-0007WQ-3g; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:47:30 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G55Sj-0007WK-LH for gen-art@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:47:29 -0400
Received: from zcars04f.nortel.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G55Sh-0001LF-A6 for gen-art@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:47:29 -0400
Received: from zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com (zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com [47.129.230.99]) by zcars04f.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id k6OIlMR02274; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:47:22 -0400 (EDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:47:06 -0400
Message-ID: <713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B409EA68B7@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res-06
Thread-Index: AcavUY+RBUrFFb2oQma/kr5KYgQcmw==
From: Sharon Chisholm <schishol@nortel.com>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4
Cc: pk@ISOC.DE, mlarson@verisign.com, sra@hactrn.net
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for: draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res-06 For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. --------------------------------------------------------- This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. 1. The document doesn't actually say anywhere that it is informational. Looking at recently published informational RFCs (4586 for example), it would seem the document needs a 'Category: Informational' in the header 2. In section 1, first paragraph, it refers to 'the thirteen com/net TLD name servers' but isn't that just the number at the time of publication? Shouldn't we clarify that? 3. In section 2.1, on page 5, second paragraph, I think I got a little turned around. It is claiming that under the circumstances described there is no value in re-querying the parent, since it gave you the bad information in the first place, but what about a potentially valid peer name server? Couldn't you get that from the parent or is it assumed that is already in the cache? I.e., if ns1 is bad, is ns2 not an option? Are these meant to have different zones? example.com. IN NS ns1.example.com. example.com. IN NS ns2.example.com. 4. Section 2.2 implies that that an implementation can detect a lame server and differentiate this case from others. It would be helpful to remind implementers how to detect this. 5. In section 2.4.1, should implementations also consider detecting that they send queries to a particular server and never get responses and adapt as a result? 6. In section 2.5.1, the advice is to not be excessive with queries, but is this a well understood query rate? 1 per minute or 1 per nanosecond? 7. Section 2.10.1 is the best example in the document of how to write up the recommendation section. It clearly states where errors will be reported (either through a user interface or a log file) where in most other sections it was never specified. It might be interpreted as actual protocol warnings and error that could be returned to the client in some cases. Sections 2.6.1, 2.7.1, etc should be reworked to be more clear in their recommendations. 8. Section 2.8 starts talking about agents. This appears to be a change in terminology. 9. The first paragraph of section 2.11 seems like a good introduction to the entire section 2, but seems a bit out of place in its current location 10. Section 2.11.1 mixes problem statement and recommendation in a way that is inconsistent with the rest of the document. Sharon Chisholm Nortel Ottawa, Ontario Canada _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-… Sharon Chisholm