Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2023-02-23
Requested 2023-02-09
Authors Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy.K , Alan DeKok
I-D last updated 2023-02-17
Completed reviews Dnsdir Last Call review of -07 by Ralf Weber (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -10 by Tatuya Jinmei (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -10 by Ralf Weber (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-09-genart-lc-sparks-2023-02-17
Posted at
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready with Issues
Completed 2023-02-17
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-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-09
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2023-02-17
IETF LC End Date: 2023-02-23
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: After addressing an issue, this will be ready for publication as a
Proposed Standard RFC

Issue: draft-ietf-add-dnr needs to be a normative reference, or some other
mechanic needs to be used to ensure draft-ietf-add-dnr is published as an RFC
before IANA follows the instructions in this document.

Nit: The discussion in paragraph 3 of section 3 and the note that follows are
currently ambiguous. When it calls out that 2865 limits the size of DHCP
options and that 7499 and 7930 relaxes the limit, is it only trying to inform
where the recommendation of supporting 65535 bytes came from? Or is it trying
to constrain the size of any DHCP option added to the the attributes defined
here to 4096?