Telechat Review of draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-22
review-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-22-dnsdir-telechat-gieben-2026-07-20-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 23)
Type Telechat Review
Team DNS Directorate (dnsdir)
Deadline 2026-08-04
Requested 2026-07-13
Authors Hannes Tschofenig , Thomas Fossati , Michael Richardson , Daniel Migault
I-D last updated 2026-08-06 (Latest revision 2026-07-21)
Completed reviews Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -21 by Scott Rose (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -21 by Menachem Dodge (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -21 by Martin Duke (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -21 by Russ Housley (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -21 by Martin Thomson (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -22 by R. (Miek) Gieben (diff)
Iotdir Telechat review of -23 by Mohit Sethi
Artart Telechat review of -22 by Martin Thomson (diff)
Assignment Reviewer R. (Miek) Gieben
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile by DNS Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/ou6CU6st3D6HYTdai_Q9F3dQ4kw
Reviewed revision 22 (document currently at 23)
Result Ready
Completed 2026-07-20
review-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-22-dnsdir-telechat-gieben-2026-07-20-00
I was asked to do another, final, DNSDir review of this draft. Found a couple
of very minor nits.

In section 11:

>  When no DNS name is used, SNI is not applicable.

Later in the document the term 'domain name(s)' is used, I think that better
than DNS name, i.e. s/DNS name/domain name/ in this sentence.

And

> deployments that rely on ECH for privacy also need to protect DNS resolution,
for example using encrypted DNS mechanisms; see...

I think the word 'also' should be BCP14 term, either SHOULD or MAY.

For the rest I agree with Scott's DNSDir review of this draft.