Early Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis-00
review-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis-00-dnsdir-early-ma-2023-08-29-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 04) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | DNS Directorate (dnsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2023-08-31 | |
| Requested | 2023-07-23 | |
| Requested by | Tim Wicinski | |
| Authors | Peter Koch , Matt Larson , Paul E. Hoffman | |
| I-D last updated | 2023-08-29 | |
| Completed reviews |
Dnsdir Early review of -00
by Di Ma
(diff)
|
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Di Ma |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis by DNS Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/xKluVTUbPRUEeUoHSryW-soDJMs | |
| Reviewed revision | 00 (document currently at 04) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2023-08-29 |
review-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis-00-dnsdir-early-ma-2023-08-29-00
Generally speaking, I think there is no fundamental change to RFC8109 from this document. I have got several editorial comments for the authors to consider: 1)In Section 2.1, there is a typo in “The priming information in software may be in any format that gives he software the addresses associated with at least some of the root server identifiers.” “he” right before “software ” should have been “the”. 2)In Section 3.1, as in “Because the NS records for the root are not special”, there would be better “root zone” here instead of just “root”. 3)In Section 4.2, as in “There are currently 13 root servers. All have one IPv4 address and one IPv6 address. ” I suggest “Each has one single IPv4 address and one single IPv6 address. ” 4)On the whole, this document uses “root name server” somewhere and “root server” somewhere else. I suggest using only one of them to keep terminology consistence.