Last Call Review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-12

Request Review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-08-25
Requested 2017-08-11
Authors Pierre Pfister, Ted Lemon
Draft last updated 2017-08-24
Completed reviews Opsdir Early review of -03 by Jon Mitchell (diff)
Intdir Early review of -03 by Dave Thaler (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Daniel Migault (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Dale Worley (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dale Worley 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-homenet-dot-12-genart-lc-worley-2017-08-24
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 14)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2017-08-24


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft.  The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

Document:  draft-ietf-homenet-dot-12
Reviewer:  Dale R. Worley
Review Date:  2017-08-24
IETF LC End Date:  2017-08-25
IESG Telechat date:  2017-08-31


This draft is ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC.  It has
some nits that should be considered before publication.

4.  Domain Name Reservation Considerations

   3.  Name resolution APIs MUST send queries for such
       names to a recursive DNS server that is configured to be
       authoritative for the '' zone appropriate to the

If I understand the terminology correctly, this rules out sending the
query to a DNS server that recursively sends the query to a server
that is authoritative for  If that is intended and there
are technical reasons for making this prescription, that's OK, but I
want to check that that is intended, as this rule is stricter than the
similar rule in the second paragraph of item 4, which is qualified
"Unless configured otherwise".

4.  Domain Name Reservation Considerations

There are 5 paragraphs under item 4.  It might be worth giving them
separate numbers, or if they truly form a unified topic, giving them
sub-numbers 4a, 4b, etc.

6.  Security Considerations

   Therefore, the only delegation that will allow
   names under '' to be resolved is an insecure delegation, as
   in [RFC6303] section 7.

In context what this means is clear, but its literal meaning is
sufficiently incorrect that I think it could be clarified, perhaps to

   Therefore, the only delegation that will allow names under
   '' to be resolved by a validating resolver that is not
   aware of the local meaning is an insecure delegation, as in
   [RFC6303] section 7.