Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04
review-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04-genart-lc-sparks-2020-02-07-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2020-02-12 | |
Requested | 2020-01-29 | |
Authors | Christian Huitema , Daniel Kaiser | |
I-D last updated | 2020-02-07 | |
Completed reviews |
Iotdir Last Call review of -04
by Samita Chakrabarti
(diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -04 by Bob Halley (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Robert Sparks (diff) Genart Last Call review of -04 by Robert Sparks (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -04 by Tommy Pauly (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Tianran Zhou (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Robert Sparks |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/5gQAzd3GZ0eUFosXJGwxSNgKYtY | |
Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2020-02-07 |
review-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04-genart-lc-sparks-2020-02-07-00
This is a combined genart and secdir last-call review. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Document: draft-ietf-dnssd-prireq-04 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 2020-02-07 IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-12 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Ready (but with nits) for publication as an Informational RFC This document provides a set of high-level requirements for a DNS-SD privacy exptension, and discussion motivating those requirements. Comment: It might be good to call out in the discussion that while it is intended to be thorough, it's not possible to be exhaustive. Nits (editorial, in document order): The last sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction is complex. Consider breaking it apart. In the introduction at "When analyzing these scenarios in Section 3.2", did you mean Section 3.1? In the first sentence of 3.2 at "the scenarios in Section 2", did you mean Section 3.1? At the first sentence in 3.4.4, at "online" did you mean "on-link"? The statement in the second paragraph of section 4 is perhaps too strong. Consider changing "will lead" to "are intended to lead". The item numbering in sections 4.1 and 4.2 are messsed up. The intent of the next to last paragraph in 4.1 and the last paragraph in 4.2 could be made more clear. I suggest something like: "When listing and resolving services in current DNS-SD deployments".