Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10
review-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10-dnsdir-lc-reid-2022-10-16-01

Request Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team DNS Directorate (dnsdir)
Deadline 2022-10-19
Requested 2022-10-05
Authors Boris Makarenko , Vasily Dolmatov
I-D last updated 2022-10-16
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -10 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Mohit Sethi (diff)
Dnsdir Last Call review of -10 by Jim Reid (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -12 by Scott Rose (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -13 by Jim Reid (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jim Reid
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis by DNS Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/YHBhFV3X2SwUtt_xXpgMQ3eGXHE
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 14)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2022-10-16
review-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10-dnsdir-lc-reid-2022-10-16-01
Reviewer: Jim Reid
Review result: Ready with Nits

The I-D is a no brainer. It requests a code point for a new crypto algorithm
for Secure DNS and deprecates one for an algorithm that has been obsoleted.

Some language nits.

1) The text in 4.1 "algorithm number 23 is used here as an example..." should
be moved to earlier in the document, before any of the examples are shown.

2) In 2.2 "in the private key file, it must be in one line" should be deleted.

3) The text at the start of 3.1 does not scan well and is confusing. The
private key shown in the ID does not consist of an MX record.

*Additional Comment*
I wanted to mention a meta-issue unrelated to the text in the ID. The doc is to
be an Informational RFC that updates a Proposed Standard. Which isn’t allowed
IIUC. This issue needs to be fixed (independently of the ID), perhaps with
something similar to the RFC6895 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy.