Early Review of draft-ietf-drip-registries-09
review-ietf-drip-registries-09-dnsdir-early-wicinski-2023-05-21-00

Reviewer: Tim Wicinski
Review Result:  On the right track, but needs work

This is an early review of draft-ietf-drip-registries (version -09)

I have been selected as the DNS Directorate reviewer for this draft. The DNS
Directorate seeks to review all DNS or DNS-related drafts as they pass through
IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose
of the review is to provide assistance to the ADs. For more information about
the DNS Directorate, please see https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/dnsdir

I reviewed this document with the idea that I'll be reviewing this document 
at least one more time (perhaps more).  Some of these notes are to make
sure I follow up with them during this process. 

The document talks about creating and delegating the subdomain uas.icao.arpa. 
The authors should be aware they the document will need a section requesting 
this from the IAB and referencing RFC3172. A recent example can be found here:  
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8375.html#page-9

The document discusses a new HHIT DNS Resource Record Type.  The authors
should inlcude an IANA considerations section requesting the creation of 
the HHIT RR Type.  


In Section A.1 DRIP Entity Tag, the example is as follows:

    Apex: .det.uas.icao.arpa.
    DET: 2001:0030:0280:1405:c465:1542:a33f:dc26
    ID: c4651542a33fdc26
    OGA: 05
    HID: 0028014
    HDA: 0014
    RAA: 000a
    Prefix: 2001003
    FQDN: c4651542a33fdc26.05.0014.000a.2001003.det.uas.icao.arpa.

It states "When building a DET FQDN it MUST must be built using the exploded 
(all padding present) form of the IPv6 address". 

Earlier in the document, it is stated that 2001:30/28 is registered with IANA 
already.  Perhaps my IPv6 math is incorrect, but should the prefix not be "20010030" ?

Section 10 on X.509 certificates and TLSA resource records is currently
very hand wavey.  I would hope this will be firmed up.

Section 4.5 on Text Conventions should be moved up into the Terminology section. 
There are a few acronyms (such as ORCHIDs) which are not defined in the document,
and should be. 

In Figure 2, the expanded names are used, but the figure should include the
acronyms, as they are used in the document.

There are several Interface/Provisioning mechanisms described 
(HTTPS for JSON/CBOR, RDAP, RDDS, etc).   A more useful way to document
these interfaces would make it clearer. Perhaps a second version of
Figure 2 where each interface is marked? 

The document does talk about DNS components, but there are no examples. 
There should be an appendix which gives examples of the records that 
end up in the registry.