IETF Last Call Review of draft-davids-forsalereg-18
review-davids-forsalereg-18-intdir-lc-wicinski-2025-12-28-00

Request Review of draft-davids-forsalereg
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 21)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2025-12-25
Requested 2025-11-28
Requested by Mohamed Boucadair
Authors Marco Davids
I-D last updated 2026-07-30 (Latest revision 2026-02-05)
Completed reviews Dnsdir Early review of -09 by James Gannon (diff)
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -18 by James Gannon (diff)
Intdir IETF Last Call review of -18 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -18 by Russ Housley (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -18 by Takahiro Nemoto (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -18 by Watson Ladd (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -18 by Chongfeng Xie (diff)
Artart Telechat review of -19 by Takahiro Nemoto (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tim Wicinski
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-davids-forsalereg by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/MWEGC_2zqnFDIFffwPb4kiust3c
Reviewed revision 18 (document currently at 21)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-12-28
review-davids-forsalereg-18-intdir-lc-wicinski-2025-12-28-00
I am the assigned int-dir reviewer for this draft.These comments were written
with the intent of improving the Internet area aspects of the IETF drafts.
Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For
background on int-dir, please see the
[FAQ](https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/intdir).

The document is well written and straight forward. The ABNF looks correct
(and I re-reviewed the DNSOP discussion on utf-8 and TXT records).
I do find the multiple TXT records a different way to approach this, but the
reasoning in the document is straightforward.
I always do like the good and bad examples.

These are minor, take as you see fit.

## Terminology

I would add a simple sentence about "DNS Terminologies mentioned here are
described in [RFC9499]" I know they are refenced when used, but the terminology
doc should carry the same weird as 2119/8174 in my opinion.