Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-08
review-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-08-opsdir-lc-korhonen-2017-03-27-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2017-03-27 | |
| Requested | 2017-03-13 | |
| Authors | Kazunori Fujiwara , Akira Kato , Warren "Ace" Kumari | |
| I-D last updated | 2017-03-27 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -08
by Sandra L. Murphy
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Jouni Korhonen (diff) Genart Last Call review of -08 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) Genart Telechat review of -09 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Jouni Korhonen |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 08 (document currently at 10) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2017-03-27 |
review-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-08-opsdir-lc-korhonen-2017-03-27-00
I think would be ready if it passed IDnits. I found the document good read and found no sinkholes in it. Pointing up two implementations was also great. The Proto Write-up seems not be up to date with what IDnits says e.g., when it comes to downrefs, which is what the IDnits complain about. A couple of editorials: Lines 118-119 says: "This takes this.." I would reword to something like: "This document takes using NXDOMAIN information for more effective caching further." Lines 396 and 397 uses "is NOT" and "IS making". I would use lower case here. No reason to use capitalized and still non-RFC2119 language. Line 407 is would be great to indicate since which version of Unbound support has been in place.