IETF Last Call Review of draft-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf-06
review-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf-06-artart-lc-fossati-2026-04-23-00
| Request | Review of | draft-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
| Deadline | 2026-05-08 | |
| Requested | 2026-04-10 | |
| Authors | Wes Hardaker , Lars-Johan Liman , Joe Abley | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-06-04 (Latest revision 2026-05-19) | |
| Completed reviews |
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -06
by Paul Wouters
(diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -06 by Stewart Bryant (diff) Intdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by David Lou (diff) Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Qin Wu (diff) Artart IETF Last Call review of -06 by Thomas Fossati (diff) Dnsdir Telechat review of -07 by Tim Wicinski |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Thomas Fossati |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/U1c76c6iyuvxhVk-Vp2Og80EAZg | |
| Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 07) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2026-04-23 |
review-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf-06-artart-lc-fossati-2026-04-23-00
This document is a procedural summary rather than a technical specification, so little of the usual ARTART checklist applies to its contents. Nits: The only thing that sticks out is the use of BCP14 language, which is a pretty unconventional choice. (At least, it seems so to this reviewer.) §1.2 clearly states that it is used to "[s]tress importance of some recommendations". With this in mind, while going through the document, I come across: "WG chairs MUST coordinate within their own WGs and between their WG and other related WGs" and felt like the BCP14 MUST was unnecessary, as the expectations were clearly communicated even without the added emphasis. Besides, all the remaining must/shoulds/mays are lowercase. So it’s unclear why the above recommendation deserves special treatment. I would suggest removing §1.2 altogether and changing that solitary MUST to lowercase.