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 revision | 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 | |
| Authors | Paul E. Hoffman , Andrew Sullivan , Kazunori Fujiwara | |
| I-D 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 | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 11 (document currently at 14) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2018-08-08 |
review-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11-genart-lc-even-2018-08-08-00
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.