Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-7706bis-07

[Ines Robles <[e-mail]>]

Hi Warren,

Thank you very much for your reply,

Best wishes,

Ines.

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 8:18 PM Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 8:02 AM Ines Robles via Datatracker
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Reviewer: Ines Robles
> > 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-7706bis-07
> > Reviewer: Ines Robles
> > Review Date: 2020-02-28
> > IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-28
> > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> >
> > Summary:
> >
> > The document is well written,  it supplies appendixes with examples.
> >
> > This document describes a method for the operator of a recursive
> resolver to
> > have a complete root zone locally, and to hide queries for the root zone
> from
> > outsiders, at the cost of adding some operational fragility for the
> operator.
> >
> > I have some minor questions.
> >
> > Major issues: None
> >
> > Minor issues: None.
> >
> > Nits/editorial comments:
> >
>
> Thank you for the review!
>
> > 1- Appendix B.5: it seems that the link is not valid: <https://knot-
> >    resolver.readthedocs.io/en/stable/modules.html#root-on-loopback-rfc-
> >    7706>
> >
> >   This link worked for me:
> >   https://knot-resolver.readthedocs.io/en/stable/modules-rfc7706.html.
>
> Thanks - not just for pointing out the issue, but also finding a
> better version - as suggested, I am changing this (in a git branch
> where I am collecting updates) to
> https://knot-resolver.readthedocs.io/en/v5.0.1/modules-rfc7706.html -
> I believe that stability is the most important attribute. AD, please
> let us know if you disagree.
>
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > 1- It seems that this document replaces RFC7706, but the document states
> that
> > it updates RFC7706, is that correct?
>
> Oh, good point - once this is published, it does replace 7706 (it is a
> bis, and contains all of the content from 7706), so Obsoletes is
> better.
> Thank you, changed.
>
> >
> > 2- Abstract: "The cost of adding some operational fragility for the
> operator",
> > Does it introduce security considerations that have to be mentioned?
> >
> > 3- Section 1: "Research shows that the vast majority of queries going to
> the
> > root are for names that do not exist in the
> >    root zone." - Do you have some references to that research that can
> be added
> >    to the draft?
>
> Hmmmm... I think that we missed this because, within the DNS community
> this is sufficiently well known that we don't even think about /
> question it.
> There is quite a lot of research on this, but much if it is behind
> paywalls - while almost 20 years old now (Gods, I feel old!), I think
> that the best one to cite is still:
> https://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2001/DNSMeasRoot/dmr.pdf (
> DNS Measurements at a Root Server ) -- I will add this.
>
> >
> > 4- I would expand KSK to Key signing key (KSK).
>
> Thanks! Done!
>
> >
> > 5- Should this draft add a reference to rfc8499?
>
> Seems like a good idea, thanks! I'm adding:
> "Readers are expected to be familiar with <xref target="RFC8499"/>."
>
> >
> > Thank you for this document,
>
> ... and thank you for the review.
>
> W
>
> >
> > Ines.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>    ---maf
>