[homenet] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-22: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-22

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Maria Ines Robles for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/uld2ipgAwbN-LgVg9X1VjFAPUYY).

## Discuss

### Section 4.2, paragraph 8
```
     It is worth noticing that the Supported Transport field does not
     enable to specify a port and the used port is defined by a standard.
     In the case of DNS over TLS [RFC7858], the port is defined by
     [RFC7858] to be 853.  The need for such flexibility has been balanced
     with the difficulty of handling a list of tuples ( transport, port )
     as well as the possibility to use a dedicated IP address for the DM.
```
7858 actually says

   By default, a DNS server that supports DNS over TLS MUST listen for
   and accept TCP connections on port 853, unless it has mutual
   agreement with its clients to use a port other than 853 for DNS over
   TLS.

So it is fully permissible for a DoT server to run on a different port under
such a mutual agreement. In general, for other possible transports, just because
a port is assigned for use does not mean a deployment is obligated to run on it.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

## Comments

### IANA

The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.

### Inclusive language

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

 * Term `her`; alternatives might be `they`, `them`, `their`

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 2, paragraph 3
```
-    to.  ISPs may leverage such infrastructure and provide the homenet
+    to.  ISPs may leverage such infrastructure and provide the home network
+                                                                   +   ++++
```

### Outdated references

Document references `draft-sury-dnsext-cname-dname-00`, but `-01` is the latest
available revision.

### Grammar/style

#### Paragraph 1
```
s document defines DHCPv6 options so an Homenet Naming Authority (HNA) can a
                                     ^^
```
Use "a" instead of "an" if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound,
e.g. "a sentence", "a university".

#### Section 3, paragraph 4
```
6 options provide the necessary non optional parameters described in Appendi
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This expression is usually spelled with a hyphen.

#### Section 4.3, paragraph 2
```
represents a supported transport, and a RDM MAY indicate the support of multi
                                      ^
```
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".

#### Section 4.3, paragraph 6
```
FC8415] govern server operation in regards to option assignment. As a conveni
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Use "in regard to", "with regard to", or more simply "regarding".

#### "A.3.", paragraph 4
```
cribed in Appendix A.2, the HNA is expect to be able to handle multiple Home
                                   ^^^^^^
```
Consider using either the past participle "expected" or the present participle
"expecting" here.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool