Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-drip-registries-26
review-ietf-drip-registries-26-opsdir-lc-korhonen-2025-04-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-drip-registries
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 33)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2025-04-25
Requested 2025-04-16
Requested by Mohamed Boucadair
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)
Assignment Reviewer Jouni Korhonen
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-drip-registries by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/Byke0ZbqOg_EHeX__jTsieNHbjo
Reviewed revision 26 (document currently at 33)
Result Has nits
Completed 2025-04-26
review-ietf-drip-registries-26-opsdir-lc-korhonen-2025-04-26-00
I am the assigned OPSDIR for this document.

I cannot claim any adequate understanding of the DRIP in general as it was a
totally new topic to me. Anyway, having still read the document I think it is
ready with nits.

Editorial:
* Title "DRIP Entity Tags (DET) in the Domain Name System (DNS)" just don't
understand why using so may abbreviations in th title. I would use at most
"DRIP Entity Tags in the Domain Name System" * The document uses heavily
abbreviations from RFC9434 and RFC9374. Sometimes (in most case) these are
still expanded but sometimes not. Good example is DRIP itself. I would urge
some better consistency with abbreviations. Also, it would be great to state
that abbreviations and definitions of e.g. these two mentioned RFCs are used. *
RAA and HDA 14 scheme is somewhat confusing on the first read. Having a "2 bit
at time" illustrated example somewhere is Section 6.2.1 would be great to show
how RAA gets shifted by 2 bits etc in the final IPV6 address.

Substantial:
* Section 3 second paragraph:
  "delegation.  As such the IPv6 prefix of RAAs are 2001:3x:xxx::/44 and
   HDAs are 2001:3x:xxxy:yy::/56 with respective nibble reverse domains"
  I believe both prefix examples are wrong and should be 2001:3x:xxx0::/44 and
  HDA 2001:3x:xxxy:yy00::/56