Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11
review-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11-genart-lc-even-2018-08-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-08-13
Requested 2018-07-30
Draft last updated 2018-08-08
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -11 by Roni Even (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -12 by Allison Mankin (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -13 by Roni Even (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11-genart-lc-even-2018-08-08
Reviewed rev. 11 (document currently at 14)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2018-08-08

Review
review-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11-genart-lc-even-2018-08-08

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-??
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2018-08-08
IETF LC End Date: 2018-08-13
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: The document is ready for publication as a BCP with nits



Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: 

1.  In section 2 the term DNAME is mentioned and while CNAME is specified DNAME is not (maybe reference RFC6672?)

2. In section 5 "Most resorece record " typo.

3. This is more a comment and since I did not follow the progress of the document I am not sure the motivation here. Reading the text I noticed that in the definition of referrals in section 4 the text include also what looks to me like logic starting from the third paragraph. I was wondering why is it here and not in one of the standard track documents and referenced here. I saw that this is a big change from RFC7719.