Telechat Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-20
review-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-20-dnsdir-telechat-reid-2025-06-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 25)
Type Telechat Review
Team DNS Directorate (dnsdir)
Deadline 2025-06-24
Requested 2025-05-16
Authors Nick Buraglio , Tim Chown , Jeremy Duncan
I-D last updated 2026-05-20 (Latest revision 2025-08-11)
Completed reviews Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -18 by Michael Tüxen (diff)
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -18 by Vladimír Čunát (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -19 by Niclas Comstedt (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -18 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -18 by Ned Smith (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -20 by Jim Reid (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -23 by Timothy Winters (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -21 by Jim Reid (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -22 by Jim Reid (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jim Reid
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update by DNS Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/e1rNVltjP5kGghzkJ9iTZHx0cNA
Reviewed revision 20 (document currently at 25)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2025-06-03
review-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-20-dnsdir-telechat-reid-2025-06-03-00
I'm the dnsdir reviewer for this I-D.

The draft has no significant DNS content: ie nothing that raises operational or
protocol concerns for the DNS. From that perspective, the I-D is ready.

Overall, the I-D is clear and well written. There are a couple of nits though:

1) "Behaviors" is a non-word that annoys me. There is no reason to pluralise
behaviour (or even behavior).

2) The sentence beginning "Receiving a DNS response for a ULA destination..."
in Section 8 is clumsy and should be restructured.