Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-10

Request Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 20)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-06-25
Requested 2018-06-11
Authors Ray Bellis , Stuart Cheshire , John Dickinson , Sara Dickinson , Ted Lemon , Tom Pusateri
I-D last updated 2018-06-15
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Shwetha Bhandari (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 20)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2018-06-15
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


Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-10
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2018-06-15
IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-25
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
    Also, the document is well-written and clear.

Major issues:

Minor issues:
    Section 5.1.3 places some requirements on application level middleboxes,
    and includes a very clear explanation of why it places these requirements. 
    While it may be "obvious" to one who lives and breathes DNS, I think it
    would help to explain why the usual operation of an existing middlebox will
    (typically? always?  inherently?) meet this requirement.

    The third and fourth paragraphs of section 5.2.2 do not talk about optional
    additional TLVs.  It would be helpful if the document stated that in
    addition to those additional TLVs required by the primary TLV, other TLVs
    may be included based on their individual definition, independent of the
    definition of the primary TLV.  (Both the Encryption padding and the delay
    retry TLVs may be included in suitable messages without being called out in
    the definition of the primary TLVs.)

Nits/editorial comments:
    Section 5.4 talks about by default the TCP data ack and the DSO reply
    message being combined.  Doesn't this depend upon the responsiveness of the
    DSO engine?  Is there an implicit assumption about such timeliness (sub 200

    In section 7.1, the description of the Keepalive message seems to be
    missing the explicit sentence that a keepalive response MUST contain a
    Keepalive TLV.  I realize this is implicit in much of the description, but
    it seems a good practice to be clear about the requriement, and we should
    establish that practice in this document.  (This would seem to belong in
    the next-to-last paragraph of section 7.1.)