Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-05
review-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-05-genart-lc-yee-2025-02-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2025-02-06
Requested 2025-01-23
Authors Johan Stenstam , Peter Thomassen , John R. Levine
I-D last updated 2025-02-12
Completed reviews Dnsdir Early review of -01 by Patrick Mevzek (diff)
Dnsdir Last Call review of -05 by Nicolai Leymann (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -05 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Opsdir 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)
Assignment Reviewer Peter E. Yee
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/R5XfG8nbfhYq0h0zmebAAgoqYbw
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 09)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2025-02-12
review-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-05-genart-lc-yee-2025-02-12-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-05
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: 2025-02-12
IETF LC End Date: 2025-02-06
IESG Telechat date: 2025-03-06

Summary: This is an extension to DNS NOTIFY to support more than just zone
transfers. It includes a mechanism to register endpoints to receive
notifications. While I’m not deeply cognizant of the finer points of DNS, the
proposal appears reasonable on the surface. There are some inconsequential nits
that could be fixed. [Ready with nits]

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

Page 12, section 6.2, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: I could not find the “DSYNC:
Location of Synchronization of Endpoints” registry. Contrast that with section
6.1, where the requested type (DSYNC) is already registered! While the wording
in section 6.1 doesn’t hurt, the wording in 6.2 could indicate to IANA that no
further action is needed upon publication of this document as an RFC, which
would not appear to be the case.

Nits/editorial comments:

Page 4, section 2.1, Scheme, 2nd sentence: change “8 bit” to “8-bit”.

Page 4, section 2.1, Port, 2nd sentence: change “16 bit to 16-bit”.

Page 10, section 4.3, item 1, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: change “occuring” to
“occurring”.

Page 10, section 4.3, item 1, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: append a comma after
“e.g.”.

Page 13, Purpose: change “Use case” to “Use-case”.