Re: [Last-Call] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-08

[Ben Schwartz <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:30 AM Carlos Pignataro via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https.
> These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
> Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments
> just
> like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
> them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For
> more
> details on the INT Directorate, see
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.
>
> This document specifies the "SVCB" and "HTTPS" DNS resource record (RR)
> types
> to facilitate the lookup of information needed to make connections to
> network
> services, such as for HTTP origins.
>
> This document is clear and comprehensive. Specifically, rev -08 improved
> structure, terminology, and readability. It seems ready modulo some nits.
>
> Editorial suggestions:
> * s/followup/follow-up/g
> * "   *  Fallback to the the client's non-Alt-Svc connection behavior" -->
> duplicate "the" * "IANA from the "Resource Record (RR) TYPEs" subregistry"
> -->
> looks like that's a registry, not sub-registry (same with other parts of
> the
> IANA sections) * s/e.g./e.g.,/g * "2 octet field" -> "2-octet field"
>

Thanks for flagging these style issues.  I've proposed these changes in a
Github Pull Request [1], except for the comma changes (which appear to be a
contested point of English style).

[1] https://github.com/MikeBishop/dns-alt-svc/pull/390


> Editorially, I find this construct a bit interesting -- indirections, and
> wonder if a bit more context can be added to S7.5. 7.5.  "mandatory"
>    See Section 8.
> 8.  ServiceMode RR compatibility and mandatory keys
>

Yes, this is a bit odd, as is the forward reference for "ech".  However, it
avoids disrupting the flow of Section 7 with extensive subsections, and
helps to highlight important material.

I have no strong opinions about how this ought to be laid out in the
document.

Thank you for your consideration,
>
> Carlos.
>
>
>