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 12) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2021-08-19 | |
| Requested | 2021-08-05 | |
| Authors | Benjamin M. Schwartz , Mike Bishop , Erik Nygren | |
| I-D 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 Fluffy 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) Dnsdir Last Call review of -12 by Matt Brown |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Joe Clarke |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/pJ3vouyVcPG1fMMjbIuW0I8Ouuk | |
| Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 12) | |
| 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.