Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2015-11-23
Requested 2015-11-10
Authors Stéphane Bortzmeyer
I-D last updated 2015-11-16
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Ralph Droms (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Ralph Droms (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Shawn M Emery (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Warren "Ace" Kumari (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Warren "Ace" Kumari
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 09)
Result Has nits
Completed 2015-11-16
Be ye not afraid -- I have reviewed this document as part of the
operations directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents
being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily
for the benefit of the operation area directors.  Document editors and
WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call

Version reviewed: draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-07

Summary: Ready with nits. OpsAD attention not needed.

Please note: I strongly approve of this document, and have used it in
many examples and presentations to explain the DNS privacy work that
the IETF is undertaking. This may make me slightly biased :-). Because
I like this document I had a hard time not over-editorializing. I've
removed a bunch of bikeshedding comments, but feel free to take or
ignore the readability comments below.

O: This document describes one of the techniques that could be used to
improve DNS privacy
P: This document describes a technique to improve DNS privacy
C: This is being published, so it seems like it moves from "we could
do this" to "we are doing this" :-)

Section 1:
O: the fewer privacy problems you’ll get.
P:  the fewer privacy problems you’ll have.
P: the fewer privacy problems you have.
C: Editorial.

O: Under current practice, when a resolver receives
P: Currently, when a resolver receives
C: Readability.


I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.