Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-drip-registries-26
review-ietf-drip-registries-26-dnsdir-lc-wicinski-2025-04-25-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-drip-registries
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 33)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team DNS Directorate (dnsdir)
Deadline 2025-04-25
Requested 2025-04-11
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Adam Wiethuechter , Jim Reid
I-D last updated 2025-12-24 (Latest revision 2025-08-19)
Completed reviews Tsvart Early review of -09 by Yoshifumi Nishida (diff)
Secdir Early review of -09 by Derrell Piper (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -09 by Joel Jaeggli (diff)
Dnsdir Early review of -09 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Dnsdir Early review of -18 by David Blacka (diff)
Intdir Early review of -19 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -26 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -26 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -26 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -27 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Comments
Even if Jim is a co-author on this I-D, having another DNS pair of eyes can only help.
Assignment Reviewer Tim Wicinski
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-drip-registries by DNS Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/aQyDpeeog46WuxMsNbC7nsX900k
Reviewed revision 26 (document currently at 33)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2025-04-25
review-ietf-drip-registries-26-dnsdir-lc-wicinski-2025-04-25-00
This is another review from the DNS Directorate. 
The latest version has improved greatly since the last reviewed version (18). 

Overall there has lots of great updates to this document since my review of
the -09 version, and Mr. Blacka's review of the -18 version. 

A comment from the previous review had a comment on terminology and background
taking time to get an understanding of, and I agree with this, but feel the
authors are working through those. 

One general comment is the terminology section mentions three different RFCs
on DRIP. That is great and useful - some non binding suggestions I've seen elsewhere
would be an appendix of terms used and links to the three RFCs.  Maybe I'm 
overthinking this as trying to learn the DRIP language. 

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

(This seems to be a holdover from my review of -09)

Before I sign off on this, I'd like to see the RR Types approved, and something
working  in a zone file. 

The CBOR wire format is a new thing for this review also.  
The authors have stated they are getting CBOR expert review, but I have not found that. 

Also, has anyone peformed a simple implemntation example for these record formats 
(DNS lookup -> DRIP data)? 
Since the RR Types are not created, even TXT records would work (yes!)

Since the HHIT record examples have RDATA > 256 characters, 
as a good proof of concept to see this in a zone file.