Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnssd-srp-20
review-ietf-dnssd-srp-20-opsdir-lc-dhody-2023-06-13-00
review-ietf-dnssd-srp-20-opsdir-lc-dhody-2023-06-13-00
# OPSDIR review of draft-ietf-dnssd-srp I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in the last-call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last-call comments. The document is very clear and well-written. The motivation is described well. A separate section dealing with Operational Considerations would be an excellent addition that could explicitly deal with Backward compatibility, Logging requirements, Default values settings, Monitoring requirements etc. See RFC 5706 for inspiration. This is just a suggestion... The document is ready. I have a few minor comments and nits - ## Minor * I suggest the I-D explicitly state the default values which can be overridden via configurations. The use of the word "typically" in section 3.2.5.3 is a bit unusual. * Section 8. My preference would be to disregard brevity and list all considerations for "service.arpa" instead of relying on "home.arpa" in RFC8375. In my reading, the text refers to homenet at places and seems incorrect to blindly rely on it. Again just a suggestion and something to think about. ## Nits * Expand IoT in Abstract. Also, put the abbreviation next to "DNS-Based Service Discovery" as you use the abbreviation later on. * Section 3.1.1. * Remove the "," at "..a registration domain, or discover the default.." * Remove the "," at "..mechanisms are possible, but are.." * s/out of scope for this document/out of the scope of this document/ * Add a "," at "For these names they then discover" i.e. "For these names, they then discover" * Section 3.2.4 * Expand TSIG * I suggest rewording this "The goal is not to provide the level of security of a network managed by a skilled operator."! * Add a suitable reference for "a YXDomain RCODE" (Section 3.2.5.2) * Weird capitalization in "..both the Delete An RR From An RRset update and the Add To An RRSet update,.." (Section 3.2.5.5.2) * Section 3.3.1 * s/RFC2136/[RFC2136]/g -- If you don't want to make this update, consider using a hyphen as in RFC2136-implementations etc. * Should you also state what happens when the MUST in this section are not met? * s/are rejected with Refused./are rejected with Refused RCODE./ (section 3.3.6) * Section 6.1 * Add reference to TCP Fast Open * s/credentials to to update/credentials to update/ * Table 1, please remove the last "." in "default.service.arpa."; See https://www.iana.org/assignments/locally-served-dns-zones/locally-served-dns-zones.xhtml * The IDNITS has some warnings. I guess that no change is needed, but just making sure - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnssd-srp-20.txt --- *In case of bad formatting, see this message at - https://notes.ietf.org/draft-ietf-dnssd-srp?view* Regards, Dhruv