IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis-09
review-ietf-dnsop-3901bis-09-intdir-lc-volz-2025-12-27-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2026-01-06
Requested 2025-12-16
Requested by Mohamed Boucadair
Authors Momoka Yamamoto , Tobias Fiebig
I-D last updated 2026-06-09 (Latest revision 2026-02-12)
Completed reviews Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -09 by Geoff Huston (diff)
Intdir IETF Last Call review of -09 by Bernie Volz (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -09 by Aihua Guo (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -09 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -09 by Thomas Fossati (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -10 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -10 by Martin Duke (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -10 by Geoff Huston (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -11 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Bernie Volz
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-dnsop-3901bis by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/Et_M8HFhMh-xxcFKHMMC2pZEVVE
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 17)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2025-12-27
review-ietf-dnsop-3901bis-09-intdir-lc-volz-2025-12-27-00
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).

While the document is close, please see Geoff Huston’s DNSDIR review comments
as he did a thorough job and no need to repeat some of the same issues I found.

I will add additional minor issues:
1. It is too bad that the referenced document for [DNSFlagDay2020] has an
invalid certificate. 2. The two references to this document also use “following
[DNSFlagDay2020]” and the “following” is a bit confusing without reviewing the
reference given that following is also time based and the reference might be
interpreted as a date reference rather than informational as to why the EDNS(0)
size is recommended. Perhaps use “as per” or some other text?

Thanks to the authors for working on this document to update 3901.