Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnssd-push-20

Request Review of draft-ietf-dnssd-push
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 25)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-07-05
Requested 2019-06-21
Authors Tom Pusateri , Stuart Cheshire
I-D last updated 2019-06-28
Completed reviews Secdir Telechat review of -19 by Liang Xia (diff)
Tsvart Early review of -19 by Brian Trammell (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -20 by Liang Xia (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -20 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -23 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-dnssd-push by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 20 (document currently at 25)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2019-06-28
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


Document: draft-ietf-dnssd-push-20
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2019-06-28
IETF LC End Date: 2019-07-05
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard but with an Issue to
consider before publication,


The discussion of recursive resolvers in section 6.1 may need additional
consideration. In particular, the recommendation to pass a received error code
along to a client has, I think, some unintended consequences for the client. If
the recursive server receives a NOTIMP, for example, passing that to the client
tells the client the wrong thing about the server it is connected to. Perhaps
it would be better for the recursive server to return SERVFAIL in this
circumstance? (Similar to what it would do if it couldn't connect to the next
server as described at the bottom of page 10).


Page 5, Section 3, 3rd paragraph, last sentence: NOT REQUIRED is not a
2119/8174 keyword. I suggest using lowercase 'not required' in this sentence.

Page 7, Section 4, 3rd paragraph: The first sentence alludes to concerns about
anonymous subscriptions, saying TCP alleviates those concerns. As written this
is pretty vague. Can you expand on what you mean by an anonymous subscription
in this context?

Page 10, Section 6.1, first sentence: Suggest s/first step in DNS Push/first
step in a DNS Push/

Page 15, last paragraph: Why MUST the server immediately terminate a connection
in this situation? Just accepting the request seems safe - having subscription
requests show up for the same name seems nearly idempotent, and only one PUSH
would result from having multiple such subscriptions. Is this close an attempt
to avoid resource denial attacks buy some node subscribing many times to the
same thing? That feels extreme, especially since tearing down the connection
would cancel other subscriptions the client already has established on that

Page 16, second paragraph: I suggest replacing the second sentence with
something like "A name in a SUBSCRIBE message that matches only a literal CNAME
in the zone will only receive notifications of changes to the CNAME (assuming
the subscription asks for that type), and nothing else."

Page 23, top of page: Since section 4 restricts this protocol to TLS over TCP,
the "(or equivalent for other protocols)" phrase should be removed.