Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10
review-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-06-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-06-23
Requested 2015-06-11
Authors P Ebersman , Warren "Ace" Kumari , Chris Griffiths , Jason Livingood , Ralf Weber
Draft last updated 2015-06-13
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -10 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Yaron Sheffer (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Bert Wijnen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-06-13
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 13)
Result Almost Ready
Completed 2015-06-13
review-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-06-13-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

Document:

draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10

Reviewer:                                     Christer Holmberg

Review Date:                               13 June 2015

IETF LC End Date:                       23 June 2015

IETF Telechat Date:                   N/A

Summary:         The document is well written, but I have some editorial
comments that I’d like the authors to address.

Major Issues: None

Minor Issues: None

Editorial Issues:



General

----------



QG_1:



In the document text, you sometimes say “Negative Trust Anchor” and sometimes
“NTA”. I would suggest to say “Negative Trust Anchor (NTA)” on the first
occurrence (in the Abstract and the Introduction), and then “NTA”. In section
titles
 you can use “Negative Trust Anchor”, though, if you want.





Abstract

-----------



QA_1:



The abstract text should be more clear about what the draft does. I suggest to
re-write the last sentence, and begin the sentence with “This document
defines…”, similar to the Introduction.





Introduction:

-----------------



QI_1:



I suggest switching order of the first and second paragraph. It’s good to begin
with the background and justification, and then describe what the document does.



Q1_2:



It is really difficult to understand what a Negative Trust Anchor is when
reading section 1. In section 1.1 you talk about Trust Anchors, but if a
Negative Trust Anchor is related to a Trust Anchor I think it would be good to
mention that
 already in section 1. Then, in section 1.1, you can focus on the differences
 between a Trust Anchor and a Negative Trust Anchor.



Q1_3:



I assume sections 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 contain the motivation? If so, I think it
should be more clear.



Q1_4:



The section titles of 1.3 and 1.4 seem half-finished. Reaction to what? Not
recommended by whom?





Section 2:

------------



Q2_1:



I wonder whether the two last paragraphs belong to an “Applicability” section?



Q2_2:



The text starts by talking about failure and breakage, but it’s unclear what
failure/breakage. If that is described elsewhere, please provide a reference.





Section 8:

------------



Q8_1: I suggest to remove the “Other considerations” section title, and define
separate main sections for the Security, Privacy and IANA considerations.