Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnssd-update-lease-07
review-ietf-dnssd-update-lease-07-tsvart-lc-trammell-2023-06-08-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dnssd-update-lease |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Transport Area Review Team (tsvart) | |
| Deadline | 2023-06-13 | |
| Requested | 2023-05-30 | |
| Authors | Stuart Cheshire , Ted Lemon | |
| I-D last updated | 2023-06-08 | |
| 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 | Brian Trammell |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-dnssd-update-lease by Transport Area Review Team Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/6jeQPBB7qYspSPVZnMJwxFHMVhY | |
| Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 08) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2023-06-08 |
review-ietf-dnssd-update-lease-07-tsvart-lc-trammell-2023-06-08-00
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. This document presents no concerns from a transport standpoint. The approach in section 4.2 to prevent synchronized flooding when a network regains power seems sensible, and appears to be backed up by implementation experience. Yay! Section 6 refers to RFC 1536 for transmission control when using UDP. It seems to me that this advice is in line with section 3.1.3 of RFC 8085 (BCP 145), which seems to apply as this should be a low-volume application. But it would be nice if this document made that point explicitly.