Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-16
review-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-16-dnsdir-lc-obser-2024-09-30-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 17) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | DNS Directorate (dnsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2024-10-08 | |
| Requested | 2024-09-24 | |
| Authors | Jürgen Schönwälder | |
| I-D last updated | 2024-09-30 | |
| Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -16
by Martin Björklund
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -16 by Giuseppe Fioccola (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff) Dnsdir Last Call review of -16 by Florian Obser (diff) Genart Last Call review of -16 by Russ Housley (diff) Artart Last Call review of -16 by Bron Gondwana (diff) Dnsdir Telechat review of -17 by Florian Obser |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Florian Obser |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis by DNS Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/-mQJPhjEjEjrOiePk0uVARs3c9Y | |
| Reviewed revision | 16 (document currently at 17) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2024-09-30 |
review-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-16-dnsdir-lc-obser-2024-09-30-00
I have been selected as the DNS Directorate reviewer for this draft. The DNS Directorate seeks to review all DNS or DNS-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 ADs. For more information about the DNS Directorate, please see https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/dnsdir Changes relevant to the DNS are the introduction of a host-name type and using that type in the definition of the host type. Both changes are useful. In RFC 6991 the host type is too wide and domain-name type has some hand-wavy text about host names having stricter requirements than domain names. Strictly speaking the domain-name type does not fully capture what is currently understood to be a domain name in the DNS, but the description of the type acknowledges this: "The pattern above is intended to allow for current practice in domain name use, and some possible future expansion." This seems sensible for a YANG type. An informative reference to RFC 9499 - DNS Terminology would be useful. I'm marking the draft "ready" from a dnsdir point of view.