Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03
review-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03-opsdir-lc-jiang-2015-08-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2015-08-11
Requested 2015-08-03
Authors Paul E. Hoffman , Andrew Sullivan , Kazunori Fujiwara
Draft last updated 2015-08-13
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by David L. Black (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by David L. Black (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by David L. Black (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Sheng Jiang
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03-opsdir-lc-jiang-2015-08-13
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 05)
Result Ready
Completed 2015-08-13
review-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology-03-opsdir-lc-jiang-2015-08-13-00
Hi,

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments
were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF
drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD
reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

This Best Current Practice document provides current definitions for many of
the terms used in the DNS. This document is well written. I don't see any
issues from the operations and management perspective. It is ready to be
published.

I have some minor comments as follow:

Downref: Normative references to Informational RFCs: RFC 6561, 6781, 6841, 7344.

In section 4, class independent, there is a widow term "IN". It is helpful to
add an explanation "The CLASS of a record is set to IN (for Internet) for
common DNS records involving Internet hostnames, servers, or IP addresses."

In section 9, DNSSEC States, "These states are defined in [RFC4033] and
[RFC4035], although the two definitions differ a bit." Then, it lists these
definitions. It would be very useful if some further comparison could be added.

Editorial:

In abstract, "The terminology used in by implementers ...", delete "in".

In section 4, TTL, 3rd paragraph, "... such as when when the authoritative data
..." delete duplicated "when".

Best regards,

Sheng