Early Review of draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-14

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Early Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2016-10-17
Requested 2016-10-06
Authors Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Soohong Park, Luc Beloeil, Syam Madanapalli
Draft last updated 2016-10-17
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -14 by Bob Halley (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Derek Atkins (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -14 by Tim Chown (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Bob Halley 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-14-intdir-early-halley-2016-10-17
Reviewed rev. 14 (document currently at 16)
Review completed: 2016-10-17


I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-14.  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 



I read the document and I didn’t find any significant issues.

My only quibble is with the description of the “Domain Names of DNS Search List” in section 5.2, where the padding is done with zero octets.  The text neglects the meaning of the zero octet at the end of domain names, namely that it is the root label.  The root label is, by itself, also a valid domain name.  So it’s wrong to say

“Because the size of this field MUST be a multiple of 8 octets, for the minimum multiple including the domain name representations, the remaining octets other than the encoding parts of the domain name representations MUST be padded with zeros.”

because both the search list values and the pad values are domain name representations.  What you’re really doing here is “padding with the root name”, with the understanding that the root name would not be part of a search list.  I think that’s a reasonable restriction, as I’ve never heard of anyone using the root name on a search list.

I’m ok with this padding method, but I’ll point out another alternative, which is to pad with 0xff, which cannot be the start of a domain name.  (In theory domain names could be extended to use those bits, but experience with “binary labels” showed this doesn’t work in the real world; there’s no good way to do the transition.)