Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-12
review-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-12-genart-lc-holmberg-2018-08-16-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 17) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2018-08-24 | |
| Requested | 2018-08-10 | |
| Authors | Tommy Pauly , Paul Wouters | |
| I-D last updated | 2018-08-16 | |
| Completed reviews |
Opsdir Telechat review of -16
by Tim Chown
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Stefan Santesson (diff) Genart Last Call review of -12 by Christer Holmberg (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Tim Chown (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Christer Holmberg |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 12 (document currently at 17) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2018-08-16 |
review-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-12-genart-lc-holmberg-2018-08-16-00
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 <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-12 Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 2018-08-16 IETF LC End Date: 2018-08-24 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. I have a couple of questions that I would like the authors to address. Major issues: N/A Minor issues: Q1: Section 3.1 contains some SHOULD-do statements, e.g.,: "the initiator SHOULD also include one or more INTERNAL_IP4_DNS and INTERNAL_IP6_DNS attributes in the CFG_REQUEST" "the initiator SHOULD also include one or more INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attributes in the CFG_REQUEST." Is there a reason for not using MUST instead of SHOULD? Q2: Section 3.2 says: "the initiator SHOULD behave as if Split DNS configurations are not supported by the server." Again, is there a reason for not using MUST? Nits/editorial comments: Q3: Is there a need for the "Background" section? Since the text is related to what is described in the "Introduction", could the the text be moved there?