Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-07
review-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-07-opsdir-lc-clarke-2021-08-16-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2021-08-19
Requested 2021-08-05
Authors Benjamin M. Schwartz , Mike Bishop , Erik Nygren
Draft last updated 2021-08-16
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Dale R. Worley (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -07 by Cullen Jennings (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -07 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -08 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joe Clarke
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-07-opsdir-lc-clarke-2021-08-16
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/pJ3vouyVcPG1fMMjbIuW0I8Ouuk
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 11)
Result Ready
Completed 2021-08-16
review-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-07-opsdir-lc-clarke-2021-08-16-00
I have been assigned draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https to review on behalf of the Ops
Directorate.  This document describes two new RR types (Service Binding [SVCB]
and HTTPS).  From an operational standpoint, I think this document is ready,
and I appreciate the attention paid to interoperability with approaches such as
ECS, Alt-Svc, etc.

I did find two issues with the document, however.  On a more editorial front, I
found a few references to "ServiceForm" and "AliasForm" (the former being in
the appending, but the latter showing up in Security Considerations).  These
seem to be left over from a former revision and probably should be ServiceMode
and AliasMode now, correct?

Second, you use the term "SVCB-compatible" early on in Section 1, and you
mention what its definition might be in Section 1.4, but I don't really get a
clear picture of what makes an RR SVCB-compatible.  I feel the document should
expound on the minimum requirements to be considered as such.