Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery-09
review-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery-09-rtgdir-lc-rogge-2019-12-15-00

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this
draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or
routing-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 Routing ADs. For more information about
the Routing Directorate, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs,
it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other
IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them
through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery-09.txt
Reviewer: Henning Rogge
Review Date: 14.12.2019
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:
* No issues found. This document is ready for publication.

Comments:
* I like the fact that DRIAD uses exiting DNS infrastructure for
discovery with a large pool of existing software to use both on client
and server side. DNS is ubiquitous in most networks and easy to
bootstrap (e.g. by DHCP).
* I also like the existence of the "no relay available" type for the
AMTRELAY RData. Together with DNSSEC (or other signatures) this
provides a secure way to make a gateway stop querying.

Major Issues:
* No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
* No minor issues found.

Nits:
* If an application with integrated AMT gateway does know the domain
of the multicast sender, does it make sense to do a DNS-SD query to
the sender?
* In section 4.2.1 (RData Format - Precedence) you discuss that the
Precedence field is used in the same way as the PREFERENCE field in MX
RData. In a SRV record the field Priority has the same semantics. Is
there a reason why you choose not to reuse one of the other names?

Henning Rogge