Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error-12
review-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error-12-dnsdir-lc-brown-2025-04-16-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team DNS Directorate (dnsdir)
Deadline 2025-04-28
Requested 2025-04-14
Authors Dan Wing , Tirumaleswar Reddy.K , Neil Cook , Mohamed Boucadair
I-D last updated 2025-11-06 (Latest revision 2025-05-05)
Completed reviews Dnsdir Early review of -03 by Matt Brown (diff)
Dnsdir Early review of -03 by Di Ma (diff)
Secdir Early review of -03 by Joseph A. Salowey (diff)
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -12 by Matt Brown (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -15 by Stewart Bryant
Artart IETF Last Call review of -12 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -15 by Tim Chown
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -13 by Di Ma (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Matt Brown
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error by DNS Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/kkpRraSor_2G3ZDoHYlSj0k8j-M
Reviewed revision 12 (document currently at 15)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-04-16
review-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error-12-dnsdir-lc-brown-2025-04-16-00
I'm the designated dnsdir reviewer for this draft. I had previously reviewed
-03 back in the mists of time (aka 2023!).

My concerns in that review focused on the wisdom of introducing structured data
intended to be machine-readable into a field previously specified as intended
to be human-readable. Specifically I was not able to understand the mechanism
by which clients and servers determined when or how to apply this draft to the
EXTRA-TEXT field despite several careful re-readings of the document!

Those concerns were addressed in the follow-up discussion on the review with
the authors and subsequent updates to the draft have added and clarified the
relevant sections. The draft is now clearer in describing the intended
behaviour of clients and servers to ensure there is no confusion over whether
or not the EXTRA-TEXT field will be human-readable, or full of I-JSON content.

The current version of the draft reads well and is much clearer to me. The
other issues in the original review have also been addressed. I found no
further issues to comment on and consider this ready.