Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-05
review-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-05-dnsdir-lc-leymann-2025-01-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team DNS Directorate (dnsdir)
Deadline 2025-01-02
Requested 2024-12-12
Requested by Tim Wicinski
Authors Johan Stenstam , Peter Thomassen , John R. Levine
I-D last updated 2025-09-28 (Latest revision 2025-03-19)
Completed reviews Dnsdir Early review of -01 by Patrick Mevzek (diff)
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -05 by Nicolai Leymann (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -05 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -05 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -05 by Giuseppe Fioccola (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -07 by Peter van Dijk (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -06 by Tony Li (diff)
Comments
Good to get a new review as we wrap up WGLC
Assignment Reviewer Nicolai Leymann
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify by DNS Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/eIu4_rsk_zyX2QEzHC8uAW-Zg-w
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 09)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2025-01-21
review-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-05-dnsdir-lc-leymann-2025-01-21-00
Hi,

I have been selected as the DNS Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
DNS Directorate seeks to review all DNS or DNS-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the ADs.
For more information about the DNS Directorate, please see
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/dnsdir

There was an extensive early review for the document:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/PxPDGSbOIPpX320CwTLdEZHlvho/

Summary:
  The draft extends the use of DNS NOTIFY which is described in RFC1996.
  it received significant discussion on the mailing list based on the
  early review and the authors took care of all comments and updated 
  the document accordingly. 

  All  issues raised during the first review and on the mailing list
  were addressed. Overall I think the document is ready to be moved 
  to the next step - thanks  for the good work and thanks for listening 
  to the feedback from the working group.

Nits:
  4.1: "the notification sender MUST perform the following
   procedure:", the following description refers to steps, for consistency 
   it might be better to rephrase as "... perform the following steps".
  4.1: "and another query for city.ise.mie._dsync.jp is then required;"
    Should be a "." instead of a ";".
  6.2: "RRtype  Lists an RRtype that is defined for use.", usage of "." not 
    consistent in the list.
  8: "." at end of list missing.