Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnssd-update-lease-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-dnssd-update-lease
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2023-06-13
Requested 2023-05-30
Authors Stuart Cheshire , Ted Lemon
I-D last updated 2023-06-13
Completed reviews Dnsdir Last Call review of -07 by David C Lawrence (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Shivan Kaul Sahib (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Dale R. Worley (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -07 by Brian Trammell (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -08 by David C Lawrence
Intdir Telechat review of -08 by Jean-Michel Combes
Assignment Reviewer Shivan Kaul Sahib
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-dnssd-update-lease by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 08)
Result Has nits
Completed 2023-06-13
A few minor issues for the Security Considerations section:

1. RFC 2119 keywords are used for some but not all bounds mentioned in this
section. Is there a reason we don't use SHOULD and RECOMMEND for the maximum
acceptable value for the LEASE values?

2. It would be useful for the document to also RECOMMEND a minimum interval
between updates.

3. More broadly, ISTM that all the recommended values here (minimum interval
between updates, lease renewal min and max) should be moved up into the main
content of the document. A too-short lease, for e.g., has implications not just
for security but operation in general.

4. Is the "public key signing" a reference to SIG(0) [RFC 2931]?

5. Again, the language is in the last para of the Security Considerations
section around auth strategy is not very strong. Perhaps a reference to RFC
3007 would help.

6. "conver" in the last sentence of this section seems like a typo, I'm not
sure what this sentence means.