Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-09

[Dan Romascanu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sara,

Thank you for the response and for addressing the nit-comments in my
review. All seems fine to me now from my end.

Regards,

Dan


On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 11:51 AM Sara Dickinson <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On 17 Apr 2021, at 10:43, Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> 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-dprive-xfr-over-tls-09
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review Date: 2021-04-17
> IETF LC End Date: 2021-04-20
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary:
>
> Ready with nits.
>
> This document specifies XFR-over-TLS (XoT) i.e. the use of TLS, rather than
> clear text, to prevent zone content collection via passive monitoring of
> DNS
> zone transfers. This is a very clear and well-written document. I had to do
> further reading to understand some of the specified or referred concepts
> and
> mechanisms, but after doing it all aligned nicely. I especially appreciate
> the
> inclusion and level of detail of Section 7 which explains the updates to
> the
> existing specifications, including the RFCs updated by this document and
> clarifies the issues of backwards compatibility. There are a few nits that
> I
> suggest to address before publication.
>
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> Many thanks for the review.
>
>
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> 1. In Section 3:
>
> XoT: Generic XFR-over-TLS mechanisms as specified in this document
>
>
> What does 'Generic' mean here? Are there also non-generic / specific
> mechanisms
> similar to XoT that should be referenced? If not, consider dropping
> ‘Generic'
>
>
> It was intended to mean that the term applied to both IXFR and
> AXFR-over-TLS… I propose updating the text to the following:
>
> “XoT: XFR-over-TLS mechanisms as specified in this document which apply to
> both AXFR-over-TLS and IXFR-over-TLS"
>
>
> 2. In Section 5 there are two Design Considerations labelled both
> Performance.
> Is this the intent? If yes, maybe they should be grouped together. If not
> maybe
> at least one of the name may be changed.
>
>
> Good point - they are now grouped them together.
>
>
> 3. Should not the fact that implementations MUST use TLS 1.3 or higher,
> which
> is specified in Section 8.1, be also mentioned in the Introduction?
>
>
> Yes - the last paragraph is now update to add that.
>
>
> 4. Section 9 uses in one instance the term 'multi-master'. Can an
> alternative
> term be considered, taking into account the work summarized in I-Ds such as
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-terminology/?
>
>
> Thanks for spotting this. I suggest simply removing that text as I think
> term multi-primary in the title should be enough given our terminology
> section.
>
>
> 5. I assume that Section 20 - Changelog will be removed before publication
>
>
> I’ve added text to request this, just to make sure.
>
>
> I’ve published a -10 version the draft including these changes which I
> hope addresses your issues?
>
> Regards
>
> Sara.
>
>
>
>