Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-09
review-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-09-genart-lc-sparks-2023-02-17-00
| 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 | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/0m71H4iu4H8umCpI0OOVrmAJljE | |
| Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 12) | |
| Result | Ready w/issues | |
| Completed | 2023-02-17 |
review-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-09-genart-lc-sparks-2023-02-17-00
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-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?